R. Dirk Selland is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Charlotte Hearing Office. Over 10 years on the bench and 18,867 lifetime decisions, R. Dirk Selland has maintained a 50% approval rate. While recent data shows a 63% approval rate, this remains below the local office average of 72%. 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
Judge Selland's approval rate is calculated based on his 18,867 lifetime decisions since joining the bench in 2016. In the most recent reporting period, he maintained a 63% approval rate, which compares to the Charlotte Hearing Office average of 72% and the national average of 58%. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding his historical decision-making.
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 Selland'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 10-year career, your judge has shown a shift in approval patterns. While his lifetime average sits at 50%, his yearly trend indicates an increase in approvals, rising from 41% in 2016 to 64% in 2025. This trajectory suggests that his approach to evidence evaluation has evolved significantly compared to his earlier years on the bench.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Selland'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 Selland? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Charlotte hearing office
The Charlotte Hearing Office serves you across North Carolina and is part of a regional network managing a high volume of disability appeals. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 72%. You can expect a formal hearing process focused on your medical documentation and vocational testimony.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning you cannot choose your judge. Within the Charlotte Hearing Office, approval rates among the 6 judges vary widely, ranging from 28% to 78% over their respective careers. This variance highlights why understanding the local bench is important for your case 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.
