William J King, Grand rapids , Honolulu , Nhc chicago , Sacramento , San diego , San francisco , Stockton , Michigan , Hawaii , Illinois , California , California , California , California Odar Office, Administrative Law Judge
For the 2010 *fiscal year, Judge William J King has disposed 7 cases at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) in DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA. Out of those 7 dispostions, 0 were dismissed, 4 were approved and 3 were denied. This means that the percentage of depositions that Judge William J King has approved in DOWNEY for the 2010 fiscal year is 24%. The information below for Judge William J King was last updated on 04/28/2023.
AVERAGE STATISTICS
| Office | *Fiscal Year | Total Depositions | Total Decisions | Total Denials | Total Awards | Cases Dismissed | Cases Approved | Cases Denied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRAND RAPIDS | 2010 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0% | 57% | 43% |
| HONOLULU | 2010 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| SAN DIEGO | 2010 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| STOCKTON | 2010 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0% | 50% | 50% |
| SAN FRANCISCO | 2015 | 239 | 186 | 101 | 85 | 22% | 36% | 42% |
| SAN FRANCISCO | 2014 | 30 | 15 | 9 | 6 | 50% | 20% | 30% |
| SACRAMENTO | 2013 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| DOWNEY | 2011 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| HONOLULU | 2011 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| NHC CHICAGO | 2018 | 72 | 51 | 12 | 39 | 29% | 54% | 17% |
| NHC CHICAGO | 2019 | 321 | 234 | 102 | 132 | 27% | 41% | 32% |
| NHC CHICAGO | 2020 | 245 | 186 | 76 | 110 | 24% | 45% | 31% |
AVERAGE TIME
| Dismissed | Approved | Denied | |
|---|---|---|---|
| William J King | No Stats for FY2020 | ||
| All ALJs in DOWNEY | 19% | 52% | 29% |
| All ALJs in CALIFORNIA | 19% | 45% | 35% |
| All ALJs in the Nation | 18% | 45% | 38% |
1 Comment
Judge king was well prepared; he had clearly reviewed the entire file and had read the pre-hearing brief that I wrote. He was courteous to the claimant and he was organized and thoughtful in his questioning. I have no idea how he will rule but I felt my client had a fair and comprehensive hearing.