Eric Eklund is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Richmond hearing office. Over his 10 years on the bench, you will find he has maintained a 57% lifetime approval rate across 23,969 decisions. This sits slightly below the national latest approval rate of 58%, though he currently tracks 10 points above his local office average. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
This page presents publicly available SSA Office of Hearings Operations disposition data, with no editorial rating or evaluation. ALJs are independent decisionmakers; aggregate statistics describe past patterns, not predictions of how any individual case will be decided. Information here is provided for hearing preparation, not as legal advice.
Approval rates
Judge Eklund has presided over 23,969 lifetime decisions during his 10-year tenure. In the most recent reporting period, he maintained an approval rate of 56%, which is higher than the Richmond Hearing Office average of 47%. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding how cases have been decided in his courtroom.
Office- and national-level breakdowns of fully favorable vs denial rates aren't currently published by SSA in the per-office disposition data. The judge's own breakdown is the detail we have today.
Approval rate over time
Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Eklund's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.
Decision pattern
Over his 10 years on the bench, Judge Eklund has maintained a steady approval pattern. While his annual rates have fluctuated between a high of 64% in 2017 and a low of 53% in 2024, the most recent data shows a return to his long-term average of 57%. This consistency suggests a stable approach to evaluating your evidence and medical documentation.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Eklund's bench. Judge-specific preparation guidance requires a corpus of public Appeals Council decisions involving each judge, which we haven't built yet.
- Bring a clean treating-physician record. Longitudinal primary-care or specialist notes spanning the disability period, with consistent symptom documentation, are typically the strongest evidence at hearing. A single month's records usually aren't enough.
- Don't rely on consultative exams alone. If your medical evidence is built primarily around a one-time CE finding, expect detailed questioning. Supplement with treating-source statements where possible.
- Prepare for daily-activity questions. Have honest, specific answers about a typical day. Answers that conflict with the medical record (in either direction) tend to hurt credibility.
- Expect transferable-skills probing. A vocational expert will usually testify about jobs available to someone with your limitations. Your representative should be prepared to cross-examine.
Hearing with Judge Eklund? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Richmond hearing office
The Richmond Hearing Office serves you and other claimants across Virginia and the surrounding region. With a bench of 6 judges, the office manages a high volume of disability hearings annually. The office currently reports an average approval rate of 47%, which provides context for the local environment where your hearing will take place.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the Richmond Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 18% to 57%. This variance highlights why thorough case preparation is essential regardless of your specific assignment.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
