SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Helen Valkavich

SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Chicago Hearing Office · 9 years on the bench · 14,581 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Judge Valkavich maintains a lifetime approval rate of 51% based on 14,581 decisions rendered during her 9-year tenure. In the latest reporting period, her 60% approval rate aligns with the current NHC Chicago office average of 51% but remains below the national benchmark of 58%. These figures provide a statistical baseline for her courtroom activity.

Metric Judge Valkavich NHC Chicago National
Approval rate 51% 51% 58%
Fully favorable 45%
Denials 40%

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

Judge Valkavich
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over her 9 years on the bench, Judge Valkavich has seen fluctuations in her annual approval rates, ranging from a low of 43% in 2019 to a high of 63% in 2025. The data indicates a period of relative stability followed by a recent upward trend in approvals. This latest period, with a 60% approval rate, suggests a shift compared to her long-term lifetime average. Such variations often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of medical evidence presented during your hearing.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

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

The NHC Chicago Hearing Office serves a significant volume of claimants throughout the Illinois region. With a bench of 6 judges, the office manages a complex caseload that requires consistent adherence to federal disability standards. You can expect a formal hearing process where your medical documentation and vocational testimony are primary factors in the decision-making process. You can visit the NHC Chicago Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The SSA utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the NHC Chicago Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 41% to 69%. This variance highlights why you should focus on the strength of your own medical evidence regardless of the judge assigned.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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