Daniel Balutis is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Wilkes Barre Hearing Office. Over 10 years on the bench and 19,321 lifetime decisions, he has maintained a 28% approval rate. This sits below the national average of 58%, making preparation essential. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench and ensure your medical evidence is clear.
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
Comparing a judge's performance to broader benchmarks provides context for what to expect at your hearing. While the national average approval rate is 58%, Judge Balutis has maintained a 28% lifetime approval rate across 19,321 decisions. These figures illustrate the statistical landscape of the Wilkes Barre office, though they are not predictive of any single case.
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 Balutis'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 a 10-year tenure, the approval rate for Judge Balutis has fluctuated, beginning at 39% in 2016 and reaching 21% in 2025. This trend indicates a consistent approach to case evaluation over the last several years. While the recent approval rate is lower than the office-wide average, this pattern reflects the judge's long-term history of decision-making. The data suggests a stable pattern in how evidence is weighed during the hearing process.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Balutis'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 in Pennsylvania, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 46%. You should be prepared for a rigorous review of your medical and vocational evidence. You can see the Wilkes Barre Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Wilkes Barre office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary, ranging from 28% to 59%. Regardless of which judge is assigned to your file, the fundamental requirements for proving disability remain the same.
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.
