Christopher Hunt is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Tulsa OHO with a lifetime approval rate of 60% across 23,333 decisions. While this sits above the national average of 58%, recent trends show a 52% approval rate in the latest reporting period. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench and ensure your medical evidence is properly presented.
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 Hunt’s approval rate is measured against the broader context of the Tulsa OHO hearing office and national benchmarks. While his lifetime rate of 60% provides a long-term view, his latest reporting period shows an approval rate of 52%. This data is drawn from a docket of 23,333 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.
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 Hunt'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 10 years on the bench, Judge Hunt has seen approval rates fluctuate, peaking at 69% in 2018 before trending toward a more moderate range. The latest period shows a 52% approval rate, which is a departure from his historical lifetime average. This shift may reflect changes in the types of cases assigned to his docket or evolving standards in evidence evaluation.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Hunt'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 Hunt? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Tulsa Oho hearing office
The Tulsa OHO hearing office serves claimants throughout Oklahoma, managing a high volume of disability appeals. With a bench of 4 judges, this office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 64%, which is higher than the national average. Claimants appearing here can expect a professional environment focused on the documentation of medical impairments.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is random. At the Tulsa OHO office, the bench consists of 4 judges with lifetime approval rates ranging from 56% to 63%. Because you cannot choose your judge, your focus should remain on the strength of your medical evidence and the completeness of your file.
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.
