Scot Gulick is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Kansas City hearing office. Over his 10 years on the bench, you have seen him issue 19,584 lifetime decisions with a 34% approval rate. This sits below the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare your case for this specific judge.
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 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.
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.
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 ReviewAbout 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
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
