SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Carla Suffi

Last decided ChicagoJul 2026
Decisions 3,730since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. Carla Suffi's 60% approval rate since 2016 sits within the 41% to 82% range observed among the 14 judges whose most recent office on record is the Chicago hearing office. In the most recent reporting period, Carla Suffi approved 64% of cases, which is 10 percentage points higher than the 54% office-wide average. These figures rely on a substantial volume of decisions on record, providing a stable basis for analysis.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 60%
Decisions on record 3,730
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Suffi Chicago National
Approval rate 64% 54% 58%
Fully favorable 54% — —
Denials 36% — —

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

Judge Suffi
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, Carla Suffi has maintained a consistent pattern across 3,730 decisions on record. Her approval rate has shown a gradual upward trend over the last decade, moving from 54% in 2016 to 64% in the most recent fiscal year-to-date period. While there is year-to-year fluctuation, the latest period reflects a continuation of this steady pattern, with recent performance remaining notably above the local office average.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Suffi'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 Chicago hearing office

Carla Suffi's most recent office on record is the Chicago hearing office. This office is staffed by 14 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, and it maintains an office-wide approval rate of 54% for the latest reporting period. You can see the Chicago hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Chicago

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 14 judges whose most recent office on record is the Chicago hearing office, and 8 of them decided cases here in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 41% to 82% on their since-2016 records.

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