Teresa L. Hoskins-Hart is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Raleigh office. Over her 10 years on the bench, she has issued 18,629 lifetime decisions with a 52% approval rate. While her latest period shows a 62% approval rate, this remains 6 points below the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's 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
Comparing a judge's performance requires looking at both their long-term history and recent activity. Over 10 years on the bench, Judge Hoskins-Hart has maintained a 52% approval rate across 18,629 lifetime decisions. While her latest reporting period shows a 62% approval rate, this should be viewed alongside the broader office and state averages. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual 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 Hoskins-Hart'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
The decision pattern for Judge Hoskins-Hart has evolved over her 10-year tenure. Starting with a 45% approval rate in 2016, the data shows a gradual increase in approvals, culminating in a 67% rate during the most recent 2025 reporting period. This upward trajectory reflects her current approach to medical evidence and SSA policy guidelines.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Hoskins-Hart'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 Hoskins-Hart? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Raleigh hearing office
The Raleigh Hearing Office serves a significant population across North Carolina, managing a high volume of disability claims with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently reports an approval rate of 62%, reflecting the regional environment for SSDI claims. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on the verification of your medical and vocational evidence.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. Within the Raleigh Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 40% to 69%. This variance highlights why focusing on your own medical documentation is more important than the specific judge assigned to your hearing.
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.
