Charles Woode is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Baltimore office with a lifetime approval rate of 38% over 16,442 decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%, though aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in your preparation. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific 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 Woode maintains a lifetime approval rate of 38% based on 16,442 decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate was 33%, which is 11 percentage points lower than the NHC Baltimore office average and 20 percentage points below the national average. This data reflects a significant volume of cases handled over a 10-year tenure. 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 Woode'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 his 10 years on the bench, Judge Woode has seen his approval rates fluctuate. After an initial period of higher approvals between 2017 and 2018, the rate shifted downward in 2020 and has remained in a lower range since. The latest reporting period shows a 33% approval rate, which is consistent with the general trend observed over the last several years. This pattern reflects a stable approach to case evaluation that has persisted throughout his recent tenure.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Woode'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.
About the St Louis hearing office
The NHC Baltimore Hearing Office serves you throughout the Maryland region. It is staffed by 6 judges who manage a high volume of disability claims. The office currently maintains an average approval rate of 49%. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can see the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the NHC Baltimore office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 38% to 81%. While these rates vary, the fundamental requirements for proving disability remain consistent across all courtrooms. You can find more information on the NHC Baltimore Hearing Office page.
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.



