SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. James F. Barter

Last decided MobileSep 2024
Decisions 2,760since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rate for James F. Barter is based on 2,760 decisions recorded between January 2016 and September 2024. When evaluating this figure, consider the broader context of the Mobile hearing office, where the 18 judges whose most recent office on record is this one have approval rates ranging from 28% to 81%. These figures provide a baseline for understanding how different judicial approaches impact case outcomes. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 56%
Decisions on record 2,760

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Barter. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 27, 2024. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Barter
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY24
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

Since 2016, James F. Barter has maintained a consistent pattern of decision-making, with annual approval rates fluctuating between a low of 49% and a high of 62%. The data shows a steady volume of activity, with 2,760 total decisions on record. While the rate has seen minor yearly variations, the overall trend reflects a stable approach to evaluating disability claims. The most recent data from 2024 shows a 52% approval rate, which remains within the historical range observed throughout his time on record.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Barter'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 Mobile hearing office

James F. Barter's most recent office on record is the Mobile hearing office. This office is part of a network of hearing locations in Alabama that manage disability claims. With a bench of 18 judges, the office maintains a standard process for reviewing evidence and conducting hearings.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Mobile

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. At the Mobile hearing office, there are 18 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, with approval rates ranging from 28% to 81%. For preparation purposes, the guidance is 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