SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. William O. Gray

Last decided ChattanoogaSep 2019
Decisions 1,277since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The 59% approval rate for William O. Gray reflects all decisions on record since 2016, which can be measured against the 42% to 82% range of other judges whose most recent office on record is Chattanooga. These figures are derived from 1,277 decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 59%
Decisions on record 1,277

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Gray. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 27, 2019. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

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%FY16FY19
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

The approval rate for William O. Gray has fluctuated across the 1,277 decisions on record since 2016. You can see the yearly trend: 59% in 2016, 56% in 2017, 66% in 2018, and 49% in 2019. Because the Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, these variations in annual approval rates may reflect shifts in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence presented. This pattern highlights the importance of thorough preparation for your specific hearing.

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 Chattanooga hearing office

William O. Gray's most recent office on record is the Chattanooga hearing office, with decisions there through September 2019. This office maintains a bench of 16 judges whose most recent records are tied to this location. You can expect a formal administrative process focused on the medical and vocational evidence presented in your file. You can see the Chattanooga hearing office page for the full roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Chattanooga

The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is the Chattanooga hearing office, with approval rates ranging from 42% to 82% on their since-2016 records. Because each judge has a unique approach to evaluating evidence, the judge you draw matters. For preparation purposes, the guidance is 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