SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Theresa R. Jenkins

Last decided CharlotteJul 2026
Decisions 3,686since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates for Theresa R. Jenkins are calculated based on 3,686 decisions on record since 2016. When comparing these figures to the broader bench in Charlotte, the approval-rate range for judges at this office is 29% to 83%. In the most recent reporting period, you would find the judge maintained a 79% approval rate, which sits 8 points above the office average of 71%. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting your specific outcome.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 67%
Decisions on record 3,686
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Jenkins Charlotte National
Approval rate 79% 71% 58%
Fully favorable 75% — —
Denials 21% — —

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 Jenkins's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Jenkins
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 trend for Theresa R. Jenkins has fluctuated since 2016. After a peak in 2017, the rate saw a decline before trending upward again in recent years, with 2025 and 2026 showing strong approval figures. The latest period reflects a continuation of this recent upward pattern, diverging from the lower rates observed in the middle of the record window.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Jenkins'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 Charlotte hearing office

The most recent office on record for Theresa R. Jenkins is the Charlotte hearing office, which serves claimants across North Carolina. This office hosts a bench of 18 judges who manage a high volume of disability hearings. The office-wide approval rate in the latest period was 71%, providing a benchmark for the local judicial environment.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Charlotte

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 18 judges whose most recent office on record is the Charlotte hearing office, and 9 of them decided cases here in the latest file from July 2026. Because approval rates across this bench vary from 29% to 83%, understanding the local context is helpful for your preparation.

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