William H. Hauser is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Richmond Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 57% over 12,604 decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%, but remains above the local office average of 47%. Because case assignment is random, understanding these aggregate trends is a helpful starting point for your hearing preparation. An attorney can help you prepare your case to meet the specific standards of this office.
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 Hauser maintains a lifetime approval rate of 57% based on 12,604 decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate was 10 percentage points higher than the Richmond Hearing Office average and 5 points above the state average. These figures provide a snapshot of his historical decision-making volume rather than a prediction for your specific hearing.
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 Hauser'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 6 years on the bench, Judge Hauser has seen his approval rates fluctuate, peaking at 63% in 2019 before reaching 57% in 2021. This trend reflects a consistent level of activity, with his most recent performance remaining aligned with his long-term career average. These shifts often correspond to changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence presented during hearings.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Hauser'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 Hauser? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Richmond hearing office
The Richmond Hearing Office serves you and other claimants throughout Virginia, managing a high volume of disability appeals. With 6 judges on the bench, the office maintains a latest approval rate of 47%. You can visit the Richmond Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Across the Richmond Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges on the bench vary significantly, ranging from 18% to 57%. This variance highlights why focusing on the strength of your own medical evidence is the most effective way to prepare for your day in court.
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.
