SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Kevin Gill

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Oakland Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 17,820 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled with Judge Gill?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's performance to broader benchmarks helps you understand the environment of your upcoming hearing. Judge Gill maintains a 62% lifetime approval rate across 17,820 lifetime decisions, which currently tracks 4 percentage points higher than the national average. While his latest approval rate of 65% aligns with the Oakland Hearing Office average, it remains a point of reference rather than a guarantee.

Metric Judge Gill Oakland National
Approval rate 62% 65% 58%
Fully favorable 48%
Denials 35%

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%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over a decade on the bench, Judge Gill has demonstrated a steady approach to disability adjudication. His yearly approval trends show fluctuations, ranging from a low of 56% in 2021 to a high of 70% in 2022, reflecting the inherent variability in case evidence. The most recent data indicates a 64% approval rate, suggesting a continuation of his long-term historical average across his 17,820 lifetime decisions.

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 with Judge Gill? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.

Free Benefits Review
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Oakland hearing office

The Oakland Hearing Office manages a high volume of disability claims through its team of 6 administrative law judges. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 65%, which provides a local context for your hearing. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on the medical and vocational evidence presented in your file.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. At the Oakland Hearing Office, the bench of 6 judges features a range of approval rates, spanning from 47% to 72%. Because you cannot choose your judge, focusing on the strength of your medical evidence is the most effective way to prepare.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Free Benefits Review

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