Daniel F. Cusick has a lifetime approval rate of 34% across 7,350 decisions. While this rate provides a historical baseline, it is not a prediction for your specific hearing. Because every case is unique, an attorney can help you prepare evidence that aligns with the specific requirements of your hearing.
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
Comparing a judge's history to broader benchmarks helps contextualize your hearing. Judge Cusick's lifetime approval rate of 34% is measured against the Seven Fields Hearing Office latest rate of 71% and the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from a docket of 7,350 lifetime decisions, providing a stable statistical sample. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.
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 Cusick'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 4 years on the bench, Judge Cusick has maintained a consistent decision pattern. His annual approval rates have remained steady, moving from 33% in 2016 to 31% in 2019. This stability suggests a predictable approach to evaluating disability claims. The data indicates that his recent decisions continue to align with his long-term historical average.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Cusick'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 Cusick? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Seven Fields hearing office
The Seven Fields Hearing Office serves a significant population across Pennsylvania. With a bench of 6 judges, the office handles a high volume of cases, maintaining an office-wide latest approval rate of 71%. You should expect a professional environment focused on the rigorous application of Social Security Administration regulations. You can see the Seven Fields 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 a specific judge is essentially random. At the Seven Fields office, the bench features a range of approval rates, spanning from 34% to 71% across the office's judges. Because you cannot choose your judge, focusing on the strength of your medical documentation is the most effective way to prepare.
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.
