SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Scott M. Staller

Last decided HarrisburgJul 2026
Decisions 4,311since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. The 47% approval rate for Scott M. Staller covers all decisions on record since 2016, providing a broad view of the judge's history. In contrast, the latest-period data allows for a more focused comparison against the Harrisburg office, state, and national averages. With 4,311 decisions on record, the data provides a foundation for understanding these trends.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 47%
Decisions on record 4,311
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Staller Harrisburg National
Approval rate 50% 43% 58%
Fully favorable 45% — —
Denials 50% — —

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

Judge Staller
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 2016, your approval rate for Scott M. Staller has shown a varied trajectory, moving from 44% in the initial year to 50% in the most recent partial fiscal year. The judge's decisions on record total 4,311. While the rate fluctuated between 41% and 53% during this window, the latest period shows a rate of 50%, which is 7 percentage points higher than the Harrisburg office average for the same timeframe.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Staller'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 Harrisburg hearing office

The most recent office on record for Scott M. Staller is the Harrisburg hearing office. This office is part of a regional network that handles a significant volume of disability claims. With 13 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, the office maintains a diverse bench with varying approval patterns.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Harrisburg

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 13 judges whose most recent office on record is the Harrisburg hearing office, with 5 of them having decided cases in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates for this bench range from 17% to 86% on their records since 2016.

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