SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Scot Gulick

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Kansas City Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 19,584 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled with Judge Gulick?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Judge Gulick maintains a lifetime approval rate of 34% based on 19,584 decisions. This figure is compared against the latest office-wide approval rate of 54% and the national average of 58%. These metrics are drawn from public records to provide insight into historical decision patterns. Aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your individual hearing.

Metric Judge Gulick Kansas City National
Approval rate 34% 54% 58%
Fully favorable 18%
Denials 66%

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

Judge Gulick
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 10-year tenure, Judge Gulick has presided over 19,584 decisions. The yearly trend shows fluctuations, with approval rates reaching 44% in 2017 before trending to 34% in the most recent reporting period. This pattern reflects the judge's historical approach to case evaluation.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Gulick'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 Gulick? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.

Free Benefits Review
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Kansas City hearing office

The Kansas City hearing office serves you and other applicants throughout Missouri and the surrounding region. This office manages a high volume of cases with a bench of 6 judges, maintaining an office-wide latest approval rate of 54%. You can expect a formal administrative process focused on the objective evaluation of your medical evidence. You can visit the Kansas City Hearing Office page for more information on the local roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the Kansas City hearing office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 28% to 61%. This variance highlights that the specific judge assigned to your case can influence the procedural environment.

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