Michelle Wolfe is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Wilkes Barre Hearing Office with a 29% lifetime approval rate across 21,751 decisions. While this rate is below the national average, it reflects a stable pattern over 10 years on the bench. Aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting your specific outcome. Having a qualified attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's bench.
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
Judge Wolfe maintains a lifetime approval rate of 29% based on 21,751 total decisions. In the most recent reporting period, her approval rate was 29%, which is 17 percentage points below the Wilkes Barre Hearing Office average and 29 points below the national average. These figures reflect a decade of judicial activity, providing a long-term view of her decision-making patterns. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.
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 Wolfe'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 Wolfe has seen her approval rates fluctuate, reaching a high of 36% in 2018 before dipping to 20% during 2020 and 2021. Recent years show a recovery, with approval rates climbing to 34% in 2024 and 32% in 2025. This trend suggests that while her overall lifetime average is 29%, your hearing will be evaluated based on the current evidentiary standards she applies.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Wolfe'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?
About the Wilkes Barre hearing office
The Wilkes Barre Hearing Office serves a significant population across Pennsylvania, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an average approval rate of 46%, which is lower than the state average of 55%. You should be prepared for a thorough review of your medical documentation and work history. You can visit the Wilkes Barre 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 Wilkes Barre Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 29% to 59%. Because you cannot choose your judge, understanding the office-wide environment is helpful for your preparation.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
