Curtis Renoe is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Sacramento Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 48%. This sits below the national average of 58%. Over his 3 years on the bench, he has issued 3,803 lifetime decisions. Because case assignment is random, understanding these patterns is helpful, but aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific 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. Judge Renoe's 48% lifetime approval rate is measured against the Sacramento Hearing Office latest rate of 65% and the national average of 58%. With 3,803 lifetime decisions on record, the data offers a stable look at his historical approach to disability claims. 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 Renoe'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 his 3-year tenure, Judge Renoe's approval rate has shown a downward trend. Starting at 55% in 2016, the rate shifted to 51% in 2017 and reached 41% in 2018. This pattern indicates a consistent shift in outcomes over the course of his time on the bench. These figures are based on 3,803 lifetime decisions, reflecting a significant volume of case reviews.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Renoe'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 Renoe? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Sacramento hearing office
The Sacramento Hearing Office serves a large population of claimants across Northern California. It maintains a bench of 6 judges who manage a high volume of disability cases annually. The office currently reports an approval rate of 65%, which is higher than both the state and national averages. You can visit the Sacramento 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 assignment to Judge Renoe is essentially random. Within the Sacramento Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 48% to 75%. This variance highlights why understanding the local bench is important for your hearing strategy.
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.
