SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Janice E. Barnes-Williams

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Kansas City Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 17,951 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled with Judge Barnes-Williams?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's performance to broader benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. While the national average approval rate is 58%, Judge Barnes-Williams maintains a 34% lifetime approval rate. This data, drawn from 17,951 lifetime decisions, offers a look at how cases have been resolved in her courtroom over the last decade.

Metric Judge Barnes-Williams Kansas City National
Approval rate 34% 54% 58%
Fully favorable 30%
Denials 64%

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

Judge Barnes-Williams
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over her 10 years on the bench, Judge Barnes-Williams has seen her approval rates fluctuate, moving from 32% in 2016 to a high of 45% in 2018, followed by a low of 23% in 2021. More recently, the data shows stabilization, with the approval rate holding at 36% from 2023 through 2025. These trends reflect the judge's long-term approach to the Social Security Act disability process.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Barnes-Williams'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 with Judge Barnes-Williams? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.

Free Benefits Review
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Kansas City hearing office

The Kansas City (Missouri) Hearing Office manages a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a latest approval rate of 54%. You can expect a formal process focused on the specific medical documentation provided in your file. You can visit the Kansas City 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 judge is assigned randomly. Within the Kansas City Hearing Office, the 6 ALJs range from 28% to 61% in their lifetime approval rates. This variation highlights why you should focus on the strength of your own medical evidence regardless of your assignment.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Free Benefits Review

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