John M. Dowling is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC St Louis Hearing Office, with a lifetime approval rate of 40% over 21,221 decisions. This rate sits below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, your outcome depends on the specific evidence in your file. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings. An attorney can help you prepare your case for this specific judge.
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
The approval rate for John M. Dowling is based on 21,221 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate trailed the NHC St Louis office average by 6 percentage points and the national average by 18 percentage points. These figures serve as a baseline for understanding the environment of your hearing. 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 Dowling'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 9 years on the bench, John M. Dowling has maintained a consistent decision-making profile. His yearly approval rates have fluctuated between a low of 32% in 2016 and a high of 46% in 2018. The most recent data from 2024 shows an approval rate of 35%, which remains within the historical range of his career. This trend suggests a stable approach to evaluating disability claims.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Dowling'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 claimants across Missouri and surrounding areas. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 46%. You should be prepared for a formal hearing process that emphasizes medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can see the NHC St Louis Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is essentially random. Within the NHC St Louis hearing office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 40% to 70%. Because you cannot choose your judge, it is important to focus on the quality of your medical documentation and testimony. You can review the full roster on the hearing office page.
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.



