SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Stacy Gray

SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Florence Hearing Office · 4 years on the bench · 2,763 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

You will find that Judge Gray maintains a lifetime approval rate of 78%, which is higher than the 52% office average and the 58% national average. These figures are derived from a docket of 2,601 lifetime decisions over three years on the bench. Comparing these metrics provides context for the environment of your upcoming hearing, though these aggregate rates do not predict the outcome of your specific case.

Metric Judge Gray Florence National
Approval rate 78% 48% 58%
Fully favorable 57%
Denials 33%

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

Judge Gray
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY23FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over three years on the bench, Judge Gray has presided over 2,601 lifetime decisions. The yearly trend shows a transition from an initial 100% approval rate in 2023 toward 73% in 2025. While the latest reporting period shows a 70% approval rate, this remains above regional and national benchmarks. This pattern suggests a consistent approach to evaluating evidence as the volume of cases has increased since the start of the tenure.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Gray'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 Florence hearing office

The Middlesboro Hearing Office serves you and other claimants throughout the region, managing a caseload with an office-wide latest approval rate of 52%. With a bench of six judges, the office is equipped to handle a high volume of disability claims. You can expect a formal process focused on your medical documentation and vocational testimony. You may visit the Middlesboro Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Middlesboro Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates across the bench range from 46% to 78%. This variance highlights why focusing on the strength of your medical evidence is the most effective strategy for your hearing. The guidance for your preparation remains the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Your odds change dramatically 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