SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. D. Randall Frye

Last decided CharlotteSep 2022
Decisions 2,409since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. The 73% approval rate for D. Randall Frye reflects all decisions on record since 2016, which you can compare against the 29% to 83% range of other judges whose most recent office on record is Charlotte. This docket of 2,409 decisions provides a strong statistical foundation for this analysis. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 73%
Decisions on record 2,409

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Frye. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 30, 2022. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Frye's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Frye
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY22
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

The approval rate for D. Randall Frye shows a distinct trend across the 2,409 decisions on record since 2016. After an initial period of growth, the approval rate reached a peak of 80% in 2020 before seeing a decline in the final years of the record. This pattern suggests that the approach to evidence and case requirements may have shifted over time. The recent data reflects a departure from the earlier, higher approval levels observed in the middle of the record.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Frye'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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Charlotte hearing office

D. Randall Frye's most recent office on record is the Charlotte hearing office, which serves you if you are in North Carolina. This office features a bench of 18 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on medical and vocational evidence. You can see the Charlotte hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Charlotte

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. There are 18 judges whose most recent office on record is Charlotte, with approval rates ranging from 29% to 83% on their records since 2016. Because assignment is outside your control, focusing on the quality of your evidence is essential. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.

Frequently asked questions