SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Teresa L. Hoskins-Hart

Last decided RaleighJul 2026
Decisions 3,435since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes to ensure accuracy. The 51% approval rate on record since 2016 provides a broad view of past decisions, which can be compared against the 27% to 74% range seen among other judges at the Raleigh office. More recent trends show a 55% approval rate in the latest reporting period, which sits 6 points below the office average of 61%.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 51%
Decisions on record 3,435
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Hoskins-Hart Raleigh National
Approval rate 55% 61% 58%
Fully favorable 42% — —
Denials 45% — —

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.

Judge Hoskins-Hart
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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 Teresa L. Hoskins-Hart has shown variation across the 3,435 decisions on record since 2016. After a period of relative stability, the data indicates a recent uptick in approvals, followed by a slight adjustment in the most recent fiscal year-to-date figures. This pattern reflects the complexity of the cases heard rather than a fixed approach to your disability claim.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Raleigh hearing office

Teresa L. Hoskins-Hart's most recent office on record is the Raleigh hearing office, which serves you if you are in North Carolina. This office maintains a bench of 17 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. You can expect a standard hearing process where evidence quality remains the primary factor in your decision.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Raleigh

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 17 judges whose most recent office on record is the Raleigh office, 10 of whom decided cases in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 27% to 74% on their since-2016 records.

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