SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Kevin Gill

Last decided OaklandJul 2026
Decisions 3,017since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. Kevin Gill's 63% approval rate since 2016 provides a baseline when viewed against the 26% to 84% range of other judges at the Oakland office. In the most recent reporting period, Kevin Gill's 75% approval rate sits 9 points above the office average of 66%, 14 points above the state average of 61%, and 17 points above the national average of 58%. These figures reflect recent trends in case outcomes.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 63%
Decisions on record 3,017
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Gill Oakland National
Approval rate 75% 66% 58%
Fully favorable 59% — —
Denials 25% — —

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

Judge Gill
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, Kevin Gill has issued 3,017 decisions. The yearly approval trend shows fluctuations, starting at 66% in 2016 and moving through various rates before reaching 75% in the partial 2026 fiscal year. This recent performance represents a shift from the historical average on record, which may be influenced by changes in case mix or evidence quality.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Gill'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 Oakland hearing office

Kevin Gill's most recent office on record is the Oakland hearing office, which serves you across California. This office maintains a bench of 16 judges who handle a high volume of disability claims. In the most recent reporting period, the office-wide approval rate was 66%. You can expect a formal process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Oakland

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is the Oakland office, with 6 of them having decided cases in the latest file from July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 26% to 84% since 2016. Your preparation remains the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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