SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Robert Grant

Last decided AlexandriaJul 2026
Decisions 4,626since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While Robert Grant maintains a 67% approval rate on record since 2016, the office bench shows a range of outcomes from 26% to 67%. In the most recent reporting period, Robert Grant's 68% approval rate sits 13 percentage points above the office average of 55%. These figures provide context for the statistical likelihood of outcomes, though aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than individual hearing predictions.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 67%
Decisions on record 4,626
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Grant Alexandria National
Approval rate 68% 55% 58%
Fully favorable 60% — —
Denials 32% — —

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

Judge Grant
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, Robert Grant has issued 4,626 decisions. The yearly trend shows a period of growth, peaking with a 77% approval rate in 2023 before moderating toward the current 67% level. This latest period reflects a pattern that remains higher than the office and state benchmarks. While fluctuations occur, the data suggests a stable approach to case evaluation over the last decade.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Grant'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 Alexandria hearing office

The Alexandria hearing office serves claimants across Louisiana and the surrounding region. As of the most recent data, the office bench consists of 10 judges with varying approval patterns. The office-wide approval rate in the latest period was 55%, providing a baseline for the local hearing environment.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Alexandria

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is random. There are 10 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and 7 of them decided cases here in SSA's latest file through July 2026. Approval rates among this group vary, ranging from 26% to 67% on their records since 2016. Preparation remains consistent 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