Roosevelt Currie is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC ST LOUIS hearing office. Their lifetime approval rate of 58% matches the national average of 58%. Over their 4 years on the bench, they have issued 3,006 lifetime decisions. Their rate sits 12 percentage points above the office average. Because case assignment is random, aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. 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 Currie's approval record is measured against the NHC St Louis latest office average of 46% and the national average of 58%. With 3,006 lifetime decisions, the data provides a look at how this judge has historically evaluated claims. These figures reflect a broad range of case types and medical conditions. 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 Currie'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 4-year tenure, Judge Currie's approval patterns have shown shifts. After an initial period of 66% approval in 2016, the rate was 57% in 2017 and 58% in 2018, followed by 0% in the final 2019 reporting period. This trend suggests that the judge's approach to evidence evaluation has evolved over time. The latest period reflects a departure from the long-term average, which may be influenced by changes in the complexity of the cases assigned to this docket.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Currie'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.
About the NHC St Louis hearing office
The NHC St Louis hearing office serves a large population across Missouri, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of six judges, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 46%. You can expect a review process focused on the specific requirements of 20 CFR Part 404. You can visit the NHC St Louis Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to Judge Currie is essentially random. Across the NHC St Louis bench, the six presiding judges range from 41% to 70% in lifetime approval rates. This variance highlights that the judge you draw can influence the procedural environment of your hearing. For preparation purposes, the guidance remains consistent regardless of which judge you are assigned.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.



