Deanna L. Sokolski has a lifetime approval rate of 51% across 15,821 lifetime decisions. While this sits below the national average of 58%, recent trends show an uptick in approvals. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. Because every case is unique, an attorney can help you prepare for the specific evidence requirements of this judge's 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
Judge Sokolski has presided over 15,821 lifetime decisions. While the lifetime approval rate stands at 51%, recent reporting shows a 61% approval rate, which aligns with the current office average. These figures are compared against the national average of 58% to provide context for your hearing. 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 Sokolski'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 Sokolski has shown a shift in decision patterns. While early years saw approval rates fluctuating between 46% and 53%, the trend has moved upward since 2022. The most recent reporting period shows a 61% approval rate, with 44% of cases receiving fully favorable decisions. This recent trajectory suggests a shift in case outcomes compared to the lifetime average of 51%.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Sokolski'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.
About the NHC Chicago hearing office
The NHC Chicago hearing office serves a broad population across Illinois, managing a high volume of disability claims. As one of 6 judges at this location, Judge Sokolski contributes to an office-wide environment that processes thousands of cases annually. You can expect a review of your medical evidence and vocational testimony. See the NHC Chicago Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to Judge Sokolski is essentially random. Within the NHC Chicago office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 41% to 69%. Because of this variance, the specific judge assigned to your case can influence the procedural flow of your hearing. You can find more information on the NHC Chicago hearing office page.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
