SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Mark Schafer

Last decided Little RockJul 2026
Decisions 4,405since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. Mark Schafer's 35% approval rate on record since 2016 sits within the 27% to 66% range of the Little Rock bench. In the most recent reporting period, the 35% approval rate compares to a 43% office average, a 47% state average, and a 58% national average. These figures are based on 4,405 decisions on record, providing a stable sample size. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 35%
Decisions on record 4,405
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Schafer Little Rock National
Approval rate 35% 43% 58%
Fully favorable 25% — —
Denials 65% — —

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

Judge Schafer
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, Mark Schafer has issued 4,405 decisions. The yearly approval trend shows fluctuation, with rates moving from 39% in 2016 to 35% in the partial 2026 fiscal year. The rate has remained consistent over the last several years, with the latest period reflecting a 35% approval rate.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Schafer'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 Little Rock hearing office

Mark Schafer's most recent office on record is the Little Rock Hearing Office, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves the state of Arkansas. The bench consists of 16 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, with an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 43%. You can expect a standardized hearing process at this location.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Little Rock

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is the Little Rock office, and 8 of them decided cases here in SSA's latest file through July 2026. Approval rates for this bench range from 27% to 66% since 2016. Your preparation remains consistent 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