SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. David S. Pang

SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 7,720 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Judge Pang maintains a lifetime approval rate of 60%, calculated from 7,720 total decisions over a 10-year tenure. In the most recent reporting period, the judge recorded an approval rate of 63%, which is 11 percentage points higher than the current NHC Baltimore office average and 2 points above the national average. These metrics are derived from a significant volume of cases, providing a stable look at past decision-making. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Metric Judge Pang NHC Baltimore National
Approval rate 60% 58%
Fully favorable 51%
Denials 40%

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

Judge Pang
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over a decade on the bench, Judge Pang has maintained a consistent approval pattern. The most recent data shows a 64% approval rate, suggesting a return to levels observed earlier in the judge's career. This stability across 7,720 lifetime decisions indicates a predictable approach to evaluating disability evidence. The recent trend reflects a continuation of this steady pattern in case outcomes.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Pang'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 Baltimore hearing office

The NHC Baltimore Hearing Office serves you throughout Maryland and the surrounding region. The office manages a high volume of cases with a bench of 6 judges, currently reporting an office-wide approval rate of 49%. You should expect a formal process focused on detailed medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can see the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to Judge Pang is essentially random. Across the NHC Baltimore office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 46% to 81%. This variance highlights why focusing on the strength of your medical evidence is critical. For preparation purposes, the guidance remains consistent regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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