Gerald J. Hill is an SSA ALJ at the Tacoma office, with a lifetime approval rate of 36% over 4,543 lifetime decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in your preparation. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you build a case tailored to the specific requirements of this bench.
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
Comparing a judge's performance to broader benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Hill's lifetime approval rate of 36% is measured against the latest Tacoma Hearing Office average of 58% and the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from 4,543 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting your individual outcome.
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 Hill'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 three-year tenure, your judge's approval rate shifted from 70% in 2017 to 40% in 2018 and 32% in 2019. This trend across 4,543 lifetime decisions reflects the judge's recent output. While yearly fluctuations occur due to changes in case complexity or evidence standards, this trend serves as a baseline for understanding how your case may be evaluated.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Hill'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 Hill? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Tacoma hearing office
The Tacoma Hearing Office serves a large population across Washington, managing a high volume of SSDI claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an approval rate that reflects the diverse nature of the cases heard in this region. You can expect a formal process focused on the documentation of your impairments and work history. You can visit the Tacoma Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. Within the Tacoma office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 31% to 72%. This variance highlights why you should focus on the strength of your medical evidence regardless of your specific assignment.
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.
