Suzette Knight is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Richmond Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 18% across 17,569 decisions. Because case assignment is random, the judge you draw matters. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An experienced attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's 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
Comparing a judge's approval rate to broader benchmarks provides context for your hearing. While the national average approval rate is 58%, Judge Knight’s recent approval rate is 18%. This data is drawn from 17,569 lifetime decisions, providing a stable look at historical trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual 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 Knight'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 a decade on the bench, Judge Knight has maintained a consistent approach to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) claims. Because this judge has presided over 17,569 lifetime decisions, the data suggests a predictable framework for how evidence is weighed. Recent shifts in approval percentages often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of medical documentation you present.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Knight'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 Knight? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Richmond hearing office
The Richmond (Virginia) Hearing Office serves a broad population across the region, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office handles cases according to 20 CFR Part 404 regulations. The office-wide latest approval rate is 47%, which serves as a baseline for your local jurisdiction. You can visit the Richmond (Virginia) Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is determined by administrative necessity rather than choice. Across the Richmond (Virginia) Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates for the office's 6 ALJs range from 18% to 57%. This variance highlights why understanding the bench is a standard part of your case preparation.
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.
