SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Suzette Knight

Last decided RichmondJul 2026
Decisions 3,119since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at the same timeframes to ensure accuracy. While the since-2016 record provides a broad view of history, the latest-period data offers a snapshot of current trends. The Richmond bench shows a wide range of outcomes, and the 18% record sits within this local context. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 18%
Decisions on record 3,119
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Knight Richmond National
Approval rate 16% 45% 58%
Fully favorable 11% — —
Denials 84% — —

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.

Judge Knight
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY26
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

Since December 2016, the approval rate for Suzette Knight has fluctuated across 3,119 decisions on record. After an initial period of higher approvals, the rate shifted downward before showing recent variability. The latest-period approval rate of 16% remains consistent with the broader pattern observed in recent years. This trend reflects the specific approach to case evidence and testimony, which can vary significantly from one hearing to the next.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Richmond hearing office

Suzette Knight's most recent office on record is the Richmond hearing office, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves you throughout the region, maintaining a bench of 13 judges whose most recent records are tied to this location. The office-wide latest-period approval rate is 45%. You can expect a formal hearing environment where the quality of your medical evidence is the primary factor in the decision.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Richmond

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 13 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, with 5 of them having decided cases in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates for these judges range from 18% to 59% on their records since 2016. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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