Guila Parker is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Madison Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 49% across 17,770 decisions. While this rate is below the national average, recent trends show an increase in approvals. Because your judge is assigned randomly, understanding their history is a useful part of your preparation. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's courtroom.
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 performance requires looking at both their long-term history and recent activity. Over a 10-year career, Judge Parker has maintained a consistent record, while the most recent reporting period shows an approval rate of 65%. This can be measured against the Madison Hearing Office average of 69% and the national average of 58%. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding the hearing environment.
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 Parker'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
Judge Parker has presided over 17,770 lifetime decisions during a decade on the bench. The yearly trend shows a period of stability between 2018 and 2022, where approval rates hovered between 45% and 46%. Since 2023, the data indicates an upward trend, with approval rates climbing to 66% in 2025. This recent shift suggests a departure from the earlier, more conservative pattern.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Parker'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 Parker? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Madison hearing office
The Madison Hearing Office serves you throughout Wisconsin, managing a high volume of disability cases. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an active docket and processes thousands of hearings annually. The office-wide latest approval rate currently stands at 69%. You can find more information about the local bench on the Madison Hearing Office page.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your judge is assigned randomly. Within the Madison Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 49% to 78%. While these differences exist, the fundamental requirements for proving disability remain consistent across all courtrooms.
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.
