Tanya Dvarishkis is an ALJ at the Billings Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 69% over 21,801 decisions. This is higher than the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, understanding these patterns is helpful for your preparation. An attorney can help you prepare a case strategy that aligns with the specific evidentiary expectations of this bench.
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
In the most recent reporting period, Judge Dvarishkis maintained an approval rate of 77%, which is 11 percentage points higher than the national average of 58%. This performance is also 5 points above the current Billings Hearing Office average of 64%. These figures are derived from a significant docket of 21,801 lifetime decisions accumulated over her 10-year tenure. You can find more information on the Billings Hearing Office page.
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 Dvarishkis'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 her 10 years on the bench, Judge Dvarishkis has shown a consistent approach to disability adjudication. While her approval rates fluctuated between 63% and 73% during the middle of her career, the most recent data shows an upward trend, reaching 77% in the latest period. This pattern reflects her established judicial approach, though your individual case outcome always depends on the specific medical evidence you present.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Dvarishkis'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 Dvarishkis? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Billings hearing office
The Billings Hearing Office serves you across Montana, managing a high volume of cases within the region. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an average approval rate of 64%. You can expect a formal process focused on the medical and vocational evidence supporting your claim. You can see the Billings Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning you cannot choose your judge. At the Billings Hearing Office, the bench consists of 6 judges whose lifetime approval rates vary significantly, ranging from 31% to 69%. This variance highlights why understanding the tendencies of your assigned judge is a standard part of your hearing preparation.
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.
