SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Patrick S. Cutter

Last decided HarrisburgJul 2026
Decisions 3,607since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While Patrick S. Cutter has a 64% approval rate since 2016, his latest-period approval rate is 54%. This latest-period figure sits 11 percentage points above the Harrisburg office average of 43% and aligns with the state average of 54%. These figures are based on 3,607 decisions on record, providing a view of his decision-making history. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 64%
Decisions on record 3,607
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Cutter Harrisburg National
Approval rate 54% 43% 58%
Fully favorable 51% — —
Denials 46% — —

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 Cutter's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Cutter
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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 Patrick S. Cutter has fluctuated since 2016. After a peak in 2017, the trend saw a decline before an uptick in 2024. The most recent data from 2026 shows a 54% approval rate, which is a partial figure for the fiscal year. This recent shift reflects a change in the volume of favorable decisions compared to other years on record.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Cutter'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 Harrisburg hearing office

The Harrisburg hearing office serves you and other claimants across Pennsylvania. There are 13 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and the office-wide latest-period approval rate is 43%. You can expect a formal hearing process where the quality of your medical evidence is the primary factor in the outcome.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Harrisburg

The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is random. There are 13 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. Approval rates among this group vary significantly, ranging from 17% to 86% on their records since 2016. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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