SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Barbara von Euler

Last decided GreensboroJul 2026
Decisions 2,813since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at the same timeframes to ensure accuracy. While Barbara von Euler has a 63% approval rate on record since 2017, her latest-period approval rate is 58%. This latest figure sits 7 percentage points below the Greensboro office average of 65% for the same period. With 2,813 total decisions on record, the data provides a stable view of past activity.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 63%
Decisions on record 2,813
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge von Euler Greensboro National
Approval rate 58% 65% 58%
Fully favorable 42% — —
Denials 42% — —

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

Judge von Euler
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY18FY26
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 2017, Barbara von Euler has maintained a consistent volume of activity, with 2,813 decisions on record. Her yearly approval rates have fluctuated, starting at 76% in 2018 and moving to 58% in the partial 2026 fiscal year. This recent trend shows a slight decline compared to her multi-year average. Such shifts often occur due to changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of medical evidence presented.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge von Euler'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 Greensboro hearing office

The Greensboro hearing office serves you across North Carolina and is one of the primary locations for regional disability hearings. There are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, and the office-wide approval rate for the latest period is 65%. You can expect a formal environment where medical documentation is the primary focus of the proceedings.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Greensboro

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. At the Greensboro hearing office, there are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. These judges show a wide range of approval rates, spanning from 50% to 89% 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