SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. John R. Allen

On record 790 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The Social Security Administration maintains data on judicial decisions to ensure transparency in the hearing process. At the NHC Falls Church office, the 14 judges on record show a wide variance in their lifetime approval records, ranging from 29% to 80%. John R. Allen's 43% approval rate is based on 790 lifetime decisions, providing a stable data set for your review. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your specific hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 43%
Decisions on record 790

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Allen. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 25, 2020. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Allen's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Allen
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY20
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

John R. Allen's record, spanning from 2016 to 2020, shows a downward trend in approval rates. Starting at 64% in 2016, the rate shifted to 32% by 2020. This pattern reflects the judge's history across 790 lifetime decisions. Such shifts often occur due to changes in case complexity or the specific evidence presented in a given year, marking a departure from the earlier, higher approval percentages observed at the beginning of this record window.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Allen'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 NHC Falls Church hearing office

The NHC Falls Church hearing office serves you if you are a claimant throughout the District of Columbia region. This office manages a diverse docket with 14 judges on record, reflecting the high volume of disability claims in the area. You can expect a formal administrative process where the quality of your medical documentation is paramount. You can visit the NHC Falls Church hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The SSA assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 14 judges on record at this office since 2016, and their lifetime approval rates vary significantly across the bench. Because you cannot choose your judge, your focus should remain on the strength of your medical evidence and the completeness of your file. Your preparation remains the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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