William J. King Jr. has a lifetime approval rate of 58% over 6,367 lifetime decisions, matching the national average exactly. While his recent approval rate is 7 percentage points higher than the NHC Chicago office average, these figures represent past trends rather than a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare your case for this judge's specific 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
Judge King maintains a lifetime approval rate of 58%, a figure derived from 6,367 lifetime decisions during his 5-year tenure. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate sits at 58%, which is 7 percentage points above the NHC Chicago office average and 2 percentage points above the state average. These metrics provide a baseline for understanding how his courtroom has historically processed disability claims.
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 King Jr.'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 5 years on the bench, Judge King has seen his approval rate fluctuate, starting at 74% in 2017 and shifting to 45% in 2021. This trend shows a transition from higher initial approval rates toward a more conservative pattern in recent years. The latest period reflects a departure from his earlier, higher-volume years, potentially due to changes in case complexity or evidence requirements.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge King Jr.'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 King? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Nhc Chicago hearing office
The NHC Chicago Hearing Office serves a large population across Illinois, managing a high volume of disability claims with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently maintains an average approval rate of 51%. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can visit the NHC Chicago Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to Judge King is essentially random. Within the NHC Chicago office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 41% to 69%. This variance highlights why preparation is vital regardless of who hears your case.
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.
