SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. John Dawkins

On record 3,724 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The data below compares the latest-period approval rate of 53% against the broader office, state, and national benchmarks. Across the Tampa OHO, individual judges show a wide variance in lifetime approval rates, ranging from 31% to 90%. These figures are derived from thousands of cases to provide a statistical view of past performance rather than a prediction for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 49%
Decisions on record 3,724
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Dawkins Tampa OHO National
Approval rate 53% 59% 58%
Fully favorable 46%
Denials 47%

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

Judge Dawkins
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

Since 2016, the record for John Dawkins shows a fluctuating trend in approval rates. After a period of lower approvals, the data indicates a shift toward higher rates in 2025 and 2026. With 3,724 total decisions on record, the volume of cases provides a view of how his approach has evolved. The latest period reflects a continuation of this recent pattern, which may suggest changes in the types of evidence or case mix presented in his courtroom.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Dawkins'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 Tampa OHO hearing office

The Tampa OHO serves a significant population in Florida, maintaining a bench of 16 judges on record. The office-wide latest-period approval rate is 59%, providing a baseline for the region. You can expect a formal process focused on the medical and vocational evidence supporting your disability claim. You can see the Tampa OHO Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. There are 16 judges on record at this office since 2016, 11 of whom reported in the latest period. With lifetime approval rates across the bench spanning from 31% to 90%, the specific judge assigned to your case matters. You can see the Tampa OHO Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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