SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Roosevelt Currie

Last decided NHC St LouisSep 2019
Decisions 466since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. The 55% approval rate for Roosevelt Currie reflects all decisions on record since 2016, which can be measured against the 40% to 79% range of other judges whose most recent office on record is the NHC St Louis. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding how different judges have historically approached their dockets.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 55%
Decisions on record 466

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Currie. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 27, 2019. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Judge Currie isn't in SSA's latest disposition file, so the judge comparison tool, which compares active judges over one period, leaves them out.

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.

Judge Currie
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY19
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

The approval rate for Roosevelt Currie remained steady between 2017 and 2018, with 55% and 56% approval respectively across the majority of the 466 total decisions on record since 2016. While the data shows a lower volume of activity in 2019, the overall trend reflects a consistent approach to case evaluation. This pattern provides a stable view of how the judge has historically managed the evidence presented in disability claims.

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.

Hearing scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the NHC St Louis hearing office

Roosevelt Currie's most recent office on record is the NHC St Louis, with decisions there through September 2019. This office serves you and other claimants across the region, and its bench includes 15 judges whose most recent record is at this location. You can expect a standard administrative hearing process where the quality of your medical documentation is the primary factor in your decision.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is NHC St Louis

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 15 judges whose most recent office on record is the NHC St Louis, with approval rates ranging from 40% to 79% on their since-2016 records. Because each judge has a unique approach to evaluating medical evidence, understanding the bench as a whole is helpful for your preparation.

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