Valorie Stefanelli is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Charlotte Hearing Office. Over her 10 years on the bench, she has maintained a 61% lifetime approval rate across 17,680 decisions. While her recent approval rate of 78% sits above the national average of 58%, aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific 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
When evaluating your hearing prospects, comparing a judge's lifetime performance against current office and national benchmarks provides helpful context. Judge Stefanelli has maintained a 61% lifetime approval rate over her decade-long tenure. This figure is measured against the Charlotte Hearing Office's current 72% approval rate and the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.
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 Stefanelli'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 her 10 years on the bench, Judge Stefanelli has presided over 17,680 decisions. Her yearly approval trend shows a notable shift, moving from 52% in 2016 to a 78% approval rate in the most recent reporting period. This recent uptick indicates a more favorable environment for your claim than in previous years.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Stefanelli'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 Stefanelli? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Charlotte hearing office
The Charlotte Hearing Office serves a large population across North Carolina, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an active docket and handles cases with varying levels of medical complexity. You can see the Charlotte Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is essentially random. Within the Charlotte Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 28% to 78%. Because you cannot choose your judge, understanding the office-wide environment is essential for your preparation.
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.
