SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Wanda L. Wright

Last decided RaleighJul 2026
Decisions 3,428since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes to understand how a judge's decisions align with their peers. While Wanda L. Wright has a 55% approval rate since 2016, recent data shows a 56% approval rate in the latest reporting period. This sits 5 points below the 61% approval rate seen across the Raleigh office during the same recent timeframe. These figures reflect past decisions rather than a guarantee of your outcome.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 55%
Decisions on record 3,428
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Wright Raleigh National
Approval rate 56% 61% 58%
Fully favorable 38% — —
Denials 44% — —

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

Judge Wright
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

The approval trend for Wanda L. Wright has fluctuated since 2016. After a period of decline between 2019 and 2021, the data shows a recovery in approval rates during 2024 and 2025. The 2026 fiscal year-to-date figure of 57% suggests the recent pattern is stabilizing. These shifts often reflect 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 Wright'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 Raleigh hearing office

Wanda L. Wright's most recent office on record is the Raleigh hearing office, as of July 2026. This office serves claimants across North Carolina and maintains a bench of 17 judges. The office-wide approval rate in the latest reporting period was 61%, providing a benchmark for the region.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Raleigh

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 17 judges whose most recent office on record is the Raleigh office, with 10 of them having decided cases in the latest file. Approval rates for these judges range from 27% to 74% on their records since 2016. Your preparation remains 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