Peter J. Baum is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Tucson Hearing Office with a 63% lifetime approval rate over 24,122 decisions. This sits above the national average of 58%, providing a baseline for your expectations. Because case assignment is random, your specific outcome depends on the evidence in your file. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
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
Judge Baum has maintained a consistent record over his 10-year tenure, with a lifetime approval rate of 63% across 24,122 decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his 70% approval rate remains higher than the 58% national average. This data provides a statistical look at his decision-making history, though aggregate rates do not predict the outcome of your specific hearing.
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 Baum'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 the past decade, your judge's approval rates have fluctuated, showing a recent trend from 54% in 2022 to 71% in 2025. While his lifetime average is 63%, the recent period indicates a higher frequency of favorable outcomes. This pattern reflects an evolution in his approach to the medical and vocational evidence presented in your disability claim.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Baum'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 Baum? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Tucson hearing office
The Tucson Hearing Office serves a significant population across Arizona, managing a high volume of SSDI claims. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 71%, reflecting regional trends in disability adjudication. You should be prepared for a thorough review of your medical records and vocational history regardless of the specific judge assigned to your case.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Tucson Hearing Office utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning you cannot request a specific judge. Across this office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 ALJs range from 50% to 80%. This variance highlights that while the judge you draw is a matter of chance, the fundamental requirements for proving your disability remain constant.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
