SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. David L. Horton

Last decided BirminghamSep 2018
Decisions 1,130since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Evaluating a judge's history requires looking at the broader context of their hearing office. The 52% approval rate for David L. Horton is based on 1,130 decisions since 2016. When compared to the 23 other judges whose most recent office on record is Birmingham, this rate sits within a range of 28% to 85%. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your specific hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 52%
Decisions on record 1,130

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Horton. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 28, 2018. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Horton's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Horton
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY18
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

The approval trend for David L. Horton showed a consistent pattern during the period of 2016 through 2018. Starting with a 55% approval rate in 2016, the figures remained steady at 54% in 2017 before shifting to 46% in 2018. With 1,130 total decisions on record, these yearly variations highlight the importance of your case-specific evidence. The data suggests that while the judge's overall rate is 52%, your specific outcome is influenced by the unique requirements of your case.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Horton'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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Birmingham hearing office

The Birmingham hearing office serves you and other claimants across Alabama and the surrounding region. As of the most recent data, 23 judges have their most recent record at this location. You should be prepared for a thorough review of your medical and vocational evidence. You can see the Birmingham hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Birmingham

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 23 judges whose most recent office on record is Birmingham, and their approval rates on record since 2016 vary significantly from 28% to 85%. Because this assignment process is automated, you cannot request a specific judge. You should focus on preparing your evidence regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants

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