SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. David W. Engel

On record 4,173 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same period to ensure accuracy. While David W. Engel holds an 80% lifetime approval rate, his latest-period performance shows a 91% approval rate, which sits 28 points above the Tulsa OHO latest-period average of 63%. These figures are derived from a substantial docket of 4,173 lifetime decisions, providing a stable statistical foundation. These rates reflect historical trends rather than a guarantee of your outcome.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 80%
Decisions on record 4,173
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Engel Tulsa OHO National
Approval rate 91% 63% 58%
Fully favorable 71%
Denials 9%

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

Judge Engel
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, your approval trend for David W. Engel has shown a steady upward trajectory. After starting at 72% in 2016, the rate climbed consistently, reaching 90% in the most recent reporting period. This pattern suggests a high level of consistency in how evidence is weighed over the last decade. The latest period reflects a continuation of this steady pattern, with the judge maintaining a significantly higher approval rate than the broader office average.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Engel'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 Tulsa OHO hearing office

The Tulsa OHO serves you and other claimants across Oklahoma and the surrounding region. With 15 judges on record, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 63%. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony. See the Tulsa OHO Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The SSA assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 15 judges on record at this office since 2016, 6 of whom reported in the SSA's latest period. Approval rates across this bench vary widely, ranging from 37% to 81% on lifetime records. Your preparation remains consistent regardless of which judge is assigned to your case.

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