SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Carl Bennett Watson

Last decided Charleston SCJul 2026
Decisions 3,387since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While your judge's since-2016 approval rate is 46%, the latest-period data shows an approval rate of 49%. This sits alongside an office-wide latest-period rate of 48%, a state rate of 60%, and a national rate of 58%. These figures are derived from a docket of 3,387 decisions on record since 2016. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 46%
Decisions on record 3,387
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Watson Charleston SC National
Approval rate 49% 48% 58%
Fully favorable 40% — —
Denials 51% — —

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

Judge Watson
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

Your judge's approval rate has fluctuated since 2016. After a peak in 2018, the annual approval rate saw a decline before stabilizing in recent years. The latest-period approval rate of 49% is slightly higher than the overall average on record. This trend reflects a consistent approach to the evidence presented in each case, with the most recent data showing a steady pattern of decision-making.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Watson'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 Charleston SC hearing office

Carl Bennett Watson's most recent office on record is the Charleston SC hearing office, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves you and other claimants across South Carolina. With 15 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 48%. You can expect a review of your medical evidence at this location. See the Charleston SC Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Charleston SC

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 15 judges whose most recent office on record is the Charleston SC office, with 5 of them having decided cases in the latest SSA file. Approval rates across this bench range from 17% to 87% on their since-2016 records. 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