Daniel Curran is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Dallas North ODAR. Over 9 years and 20,963 lifetime decisions, he has maintained a 56% approval rate. This is 9 percentage points below the current office average. 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 Curran’s approval rate is calculated based on 20,963 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate trailed the Dallas North office average by 9 percentage points and the national average by 2 percentage points. These figures offer a window into historical patterns rather than a guarantee of future results.
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 Curran'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 his 9-year tenure, Judge Curran has seen fluctuations in his approval patterns, ranging from a high of 61% in 2017, 2019, and 2020 to a low of 46% in 2022. The data shows a recent recovery, with approval rates climbing to 60% in 2024. This shift suggests that the latest period reflects a stabilization following the lower rates observed during the 2021-2022 timeframe. These trends are common as case mixes and evidentiary requirements evolve over time.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Curran'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 Curran? A free benefit check tells you if you qualify.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Dallas North Odar hearing office
The Dallas North hearing office serves a large population across the region, managing a high volume of SSDI and SSI claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an active docket and adheres to strict Office of Hearings Operations procedures. You can expect a formal process where medical evidence is the primary driver of the decision. You can find more information on the Dallas North Hearing Office page.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Dallas North hearing office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 48% to 80%. Because you cannot choose your judge, your focus should remain on building a comprehensive medical record.
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.
