Mark A. Brown is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the St Louis office. With a lifetime approval rate of 77% over 1,262 lifetime decisions, his record sits above the national average. Because case assignment is random, understanding these patterns is helpful for your preparation. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings. An attorney can help you prepare your case for this specific judge.
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 Brown maintains a lifetime approval rate of 77%, which is higher than the St. Louis Hearing Office average of 54% and the national average of 58%. This data is derived from 1,262 lifetime decisions. These figures highlight how individual judges can deviate from broader regional and national trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual 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 Brown'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 four-year tenure, Judge Brown has shown a shift in approval rates. While early years saw approval rates as high as 89%, recent data indicates a shift toward 65%. This variance is common in Social Security disability adjudication and often reflects changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of medical evidence presented. Understanding this trajectory helps in preparing a robust case strategy.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Brown'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 Brown? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the St Louis hearing office
The St. Louis Hearing Office serves a large population across Missouri, managing a high volume of SSDI claims with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently maintains an average approval rate of 54%, reflecting the standards applied to disability applications in this region. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on medical necessity and vocational capacity.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning you cannot choose your judge. Within the St. Louis Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 41% to 77%. Because assignment is essentially random, you should focus on the strength of your medical documentation regardless of who presides.
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.
