Jeffrey W. Hart maintains a 60% lifetime approval rate over 22,774 decisions, which sits above the 58% national average. In the most recent reporting period, Jeffrey W. Hart approved 58% of cases, performing 6 points higher than the Minneapolis Hearing Office average. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific 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 Hart maintains a lifetime approval rate of 60% across 22,774 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his 58% approval rate sits 6 points higher than the Minneapolis Hearing Office average of 54% and 2 points above the national average. This data provides a statistical baseline for understanding how cases have been handled in this courtroom over the last decade.
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 Hart'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 his 10-year tenure, Judge Hart has demonstrated a consistent approach to disability claims. While his annual approval rates have fluctuated, the trend has remained steady, with the most recent period showing a 58% approval rate. This reflects a continuation of his long-term decision-making habits rather than a significant shift in judicial philosophy.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Hart'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 Hart? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Minneapolis hearing office
The Minneapolis Hearing Office serves a broad population across Minnesota, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an average approval rate that reflects the regional caseload and complexity of claims. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on medical evidence and vocational testimony. See the Minneapolis 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. Across the Minneapolis Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates for the bench range from 46% to 67%. Because you cannot choose your judge, understanding the office-wide environment is as important as looking at any single individual.
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.
