John A. Fraser has a lifetime approval rate of 32% across 15,306 lifetime decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%. Because SSA case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital part of your preparation. 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
When evaluating the Johnstown Hearing Office, compare individual judge performance against broader benchmarks. Judge Fraser’s lifetime approval rate of 32% is measured against the office’s latest approval rate of 53% and the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from a docket of 15,306 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting your specific outcome.
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 Fraser'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 8 years on the bench, Judge Fraser has seen fluctuations in his annual approval rates. Starting at 35% in 2016, the rate peaked at 40% in 2017 before trending through the 2019-2021 period. A return to 40% in 2022 was followed by a 25% approval rate in 2023. These shifts often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence presented.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Fraser'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 Fraser? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Johnstown hearing office
The Johnstown Hearing Office serves a wide region in Pennsylvania, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a focus on processing cases while adhering to Social Security Administration guidelines. You can expect a formal hearing process where the focus remains on your medical documentation and testimony. You can visit the Johnstown Hearing Office page for the full roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Johnstown Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 32% to 81%. Because of this variance, understanding the general environment of the office is more useful than focusing on any single peer.
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.
