SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Richard N. Staples

Last decided Kansas CitySep 2022
Decisions 2,305since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same period to ensure accuracy. Richard N. Staples' 45% approval rate on record since 2016 sits within the 33% to 77% range observed among the bench at the Kansas City office. Because these figures represent a large volume of cases, they provide a reliable view of historical decision patterns. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 45%
Decisions on record 2,305

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Staples. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 30, 2022. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Staples's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Staples
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY22
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

The approval rate for Richard N. Staples has fluctuated across the 2,305 decisions on record since 2016. After reaching a peak of 51% in 2019, the approval rate saw a decline in subsequent years, reaching 37% in 2021 before rising to 43% in 2022. This pattern reflects the inherent variability in case evidence and legal requirements over time. The recent 2022 data suggests a shift from the lower rates observed in 2021, though it remains below the 2019 high.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Staples'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 Kansas City hearing office

Richard N. Staples' most recent office on record is the Kansas City hearing office, with decisions there through September 2022. This office serves you and other claimants across the region and maintains a bench of 17 judges. While the office-wide latest-period approval rate is 56%, your individual outcome depends heavily on the specific medical evidence presented in your file.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Kansas City

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. There are 17 judges whose most recent office on record is the Kansas City office, with approval rates ranging from 33% to 77% on their since-2016 records. Twelve of these judges decided cases here in SSA's latest file. 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