Lyle Eastham is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Lexington office. Over 4 years on the bench and 6,851 lifetime decisions, they have maintained a 48% approval rate. This sits below the national average of 58%, though recent trends show an uptick in approvals. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare a case tailored to the specific requirements of this 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
Judge Eastham has maintained a lifetime approval rate of 48% across 6,851 decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate was 56%, compared to the 52% average for the Lexington Hearing Office and the 58% national average. These figures provide a baseline for his bench activity, though they do not predict the outcome of your individual case.
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 Eastham'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 4 years on the bench, Judge Eastham has shown an upward trend in approval rates. His rate was 41% in 2022, 43% in 2023, 47% in 2024, and 57% in 2025. This shift indicates that his recent decisions have been more favorable than those earlier in his tenure. You can find more information on the Lexington Hearing Office page.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Eastham'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 Eastham? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Lexington hearing office
The Lexington Hearing Office manages a high volume of disability claims across Kentucky. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a structured environment where your medical and vocational evidence is the primary driver of your outcome. You can visit the Lexington Hearing Office page to view the full roster of judges.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is random. Within the Lexington Hearing Office, the 6 ALJs range from 46% to 54% in their lifetime approval rates. Because you cannot request a specific judge, you should focus on preparing your case to meet the standards of the office as a whole.
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.
