SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. William H. Hauser

Last decided RichmondSep 2021
Decisions 1,970since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. The 58% approval rate for William H. Hauser reflects his entire record since 2016, which you can compare against the 18% to 59% range of other judges whose most recent office on record is also Richmond. With 1,970 decisions, the data provides a stable look at past patterns. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 58%
Decisions on record 1,970

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Hauser. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 24, 2021. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

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.

Judge Hauser
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY21
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 William H. Hauser has shown fluctuations over the years, beginning at 54% in 2016 and reaching 65% in 2017. Following these years, the rate moved to 55% in 2018, rose to 64% in 2019, and settled at 56% and 57% in 2020 and 2021 respectively. This pattern indicates that while the rate has shifted, it has remained within a consistent range throughout the period. These variations often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the evidence you present.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Richmond hearing office

The Richmond hearing office serves you if you are in Virginia and the surrounding region. As of the most recent data, 13 judges have their most recent office on record at this location. You can expect a standard hearing process where the focus remains on the specific medical and vocational evidence you present. You can see the Richmond hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Richmond

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 13 judges whose most recent office on record is the Richmond hearing office, with approval rates ranging from 18% to 59%. For your preparation, the guidance remains consistent 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