SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Barbara Dunn

Last decided PasadenaJul 2026
Decisions 3,405since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While Barbara Dunn has a 70% approval rate on record since 2016, recent performance shows a 74% approval rate in the latest reporting period. This latest-period figure sits 7 percentage points above the Pasadena office average of 67%, 13 points above the state, and 16 points above the national average. These figures provide a statistical baseline for your review of the office's recent trends.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 70%
Decisions on record 3,405
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Dunn Pasadena National
Approval rate 74% 67% 58%
Fully favorable 67% — —
Denials 26% — —

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

Judge Dunn
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, Barbara Dunn has maintained a consistent approval pattern across 3,405 decisions. The yearly trend shows performance ranging from 60% in 2019 to 80% in 2022, with a 74% approval rate in the latest reporting period. This stability suggests that your evaluation will be based on the evidence you provide in your specific claim.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Dunn'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 Pasadena hearing office

The Pasadena hearing office serves you and other claimants across the region and maintains a bench of 11 judges on record. As of the latest reporting period, the office-wide approval rate stands at 67%. You can expect a formal hearing process where your medical evidence is the primary factor in the outcome. You can see the Pasadena hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Pasadena

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 11 judges whose most recent office on record is the Pasadena office. These judges show a wide range of approval rates, spanning from 35% to 70% on their since-2016 records. You can view the Pasadena hearing office page to see the full roster of judges.

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