C. H. Prinsloo is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Seattle office. Over 10 years on the bench and 16,616 lifetime decisions, C. H. Prinsloo has maintained a 56% approval rate. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this 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 history to broader benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Prinsloo maintains a lifetime approval rate of 56%, which sits against a Seattle Hearing Office latest-period rate of 58% and a national average of 58%. These figures are derived from a docket of 16,616 lifetime decisions. 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 Prinsloo'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 Prinsloo has navigated varying approval trends. After an initial 70% approval rate in 2016, the data shows a period of activity before a recent resurgence, reaching 66% in 2025. This latest period suggests a shift in recent decision-making, diverging from the lifetime average. The current trend reflects a move toward higher allowance rates compared to the dip seen in 2022.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Prinsloo'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 Prinsloo? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Seattle hearing office
The Seattle Hearing Office serves a broad population across Washington, managing a high volume of SSDI claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 58%. You should be prepared for a rigorous review of medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can see the Seattle 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 your judge is selected randomly. Within the Seattle Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 27% to 66%, illustrating that the specific judge assigned to your case can influence the process. Regardless of the assigned judge, the fundamental requirements for proving your disability remain consistent.
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.
