SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. William J. King Jr.

Last decided NHC ChicagoSep 2021
Decisions 1,009since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Understanding how your judge compares to the broader bench can help you prepare for your hearing. At the NHC Chicago, the 19 judges whose most recent office on record is this one show a wide range of approval rates, from 26% to 63% on their records since 2016. With 1,009 decisions on record, the data for William J. King Jr. provides a clear view of past activity. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your specific hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 56%
Decisions on record 1,009

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge King Jr.. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 24, 2021. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

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.

Judge King Jr.
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY18FY21
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 William J. King Jr. has fluctuated over the years, starting at 57% in 2018 and moving to 52% in 2019. In 2020, the rate rose to 62% before shifting to 45% in 2021 based on 90 decisions. These 1,009 total decisions on record since 2017 show a judge whose patterns have shifted over time. This variance may reflect changes in case mix or evidence quality.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the NHC Chicago hearing office

William J. King Jr.'s most recent office on record is the NHC Chicago, where decisions were logged through September 2021. This office maintains a bench of 19 judges whose most recent records are tied to this location. You can expect a standard hearing process where evidence quality remains the primary factor in your decision. You can find more information on the NHC Chicago Hearing Office page.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is NHC Chicago

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 19 judges whose most recent office on record is the NHC Chicago. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 26% to 63% on their records since 2016. Your preparation remains the same regardless of which judge is assigned to your case.

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