SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Michael Schaefer

Last decided MadisonJul 2026
Decisions 3,563since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

To understand how Michael Schaefer compares to the broader bench, you can look at approval rates across the same data window. The 61% approval rate since 2016 sits within the 50% to 78% range established by the 8 judges whose most recent office on record is the Madison hearing office. While latest-period data provides a snapshot of recent activity, the long-term record offers a more stable view of decision-making history.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 61%
Decisions on record 3,563
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Schaefer Madison National
Approval rate 25% 69% 58%
Fully favorable 25% — —
Denials 75% — —

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

Judge Schaefer
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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 January 2016, Michael Schaefer has maintained a relatively steady approval pattern, with annual rates fluctuating between 51% and 75%. While you may note an increase in approvals during 2025, the limited data from the partial 2026 fiscal year does not represent a long-term shift. With 3,563 total decisions on record, this history provides a consistent baseline for understanding how cases have been handled over the last decade.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Schaefer'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 Madison hearing office

Michael Schaefer's most recent office on record is the Madison hearing office, which serves you if you are in the region. This office includes 8 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. You can expect a standard hearing process where the quality of your medical evidence remains the primary factor in a decision.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Madison

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 8 judges whose most recent office on record is the Madison hearing office. Approval rates across this bench vary, ranging from 50% to 78% 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