Richard Jackson is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Greensboro Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 69% across 21,054 decisions. This sits above the national median of 58%. While his recent approval rate of 78% is 11 points higher than the national average, these figures represent past patterns, not predictions for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the unique requirements of your case.
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 Jackson maintains a lifetime approval rate of 69% across 21,054 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate reached 78%, which is 11 points higher than the national average of 58%. These figures provide a statistical look at his tenure, though they should be viewed as a probability trend rather than a guarantee 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 Jackson'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 10-year tenure, Judge Jackson has shown an upward trend in approval rates. After starting with rates in the mid-50% range, his decisions have shifted, with recent years consistently showing approval rates near or above 75%. The latest period reflects a continuation of this pattern, suggesting a stable approach to case evaluation compared to his earlier years on the bench.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Jackson'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 Jackson? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Greensboro hearing office
The Greensboro Hearing Office serves you across North Carolina, managing a high volume of cases with a team of 6 judges. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 66%, reflecting the local landscape of disability claims. You can expect a professional environment where evidence quality is the primary driver of hearing outcomes.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Across the Greensboro bench, the office's 6 ALJs range from 49% to 73% in lifetime approval rates. While this variance exists, the fundamental requirements for proving your disability remain consistent regardless of which judge presides.
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.
