James B. Griffith is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC ST LOUIS office with a 60% lifetime approval rate over 1,406 decisions. This sits above the national average of 58%. While his recent rate is 14 points above the office average, aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific evidence requirements of this judge's courtroom.
This page presents publicly available SSA Office of Hearings Operations disposition data, with no editorial rating or evaluation. ALJs are independent decisionmakers; aggregate statistics describe past patterns, not predictions of how any individual case will be decided. Information here is provided for hearing preparation, not as legal advice.
Approval rates
Judge Griffith maintains a lifetime approval rate of 60%, a figure derived from 1,406 lifetime decisions during his tenure. When compared to the most recent reporting period, his approval rate stands 14 points higher than the NHC St Louis office average and 2 points above the national average of 58%. This data provides a statistical baseline for understanding his decision-making history, though aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predictions for your individual hearing.
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 Griffith's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.
Decision pattern
Over your 3 years on the bench, Judge Griffith has demonstrated a clear upward trend in his approval rate. Starting at 52% in 2016, his rate increased to 71% by 2017 and remained steady at 71% through 2018. This shift suggests a consistent pattern in how he evaluates evidence and testimony as his tenure progressed. The recent stability in his approval rate reflects a settled approach to the cases assigned to his docket.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Griffith'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.
About the NHC St Louis hearing office
The NHC St Louis hearing office serves you throughout Missouri and the surrounding region. As one of 6 judges at this location, Judge Griffith contributes to a busy docket that handles a high volume of disability claims. The office currently maintains an average approval rate of 46%. You can visit the NHC St Louis 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 your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the NHC St Louis office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 41% to 70%. Because each judge brings a unique perspective to the courtroom, understanding the office-wide environment is helpful for your preparation.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
