SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Christopher Hunt

Last decided Oklahoma CityJul 2026
Decisions 3,939since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing performance requires looking at consistent data windows. While the overall approval rate since 2016 is 60%, the latest-period approval rate of 57% sits 14 percentage points below the 71% office average for the same recent period. These figures are derived from a volume of 3,939 decisions on record, providing a basis for comparison against the 45% to 85% range seen among the 17 judges whose most recent office on record is Oklahoma City.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 60%
Decisions on record 3,939
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Hunt Oklahoma City National
Approval rate 57% 71% 58%
Fully favorable 52% — —
Denials 43% — —

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.

Judge Hunt
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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

Since 2016, the approval rate has experienced fluctuations, moving from a high of 69% in 2018 and 2019 to a low of 49% in 2024. The data shows a recent stabilization, with the 2026 fiscal year-to-date rate of 58% aligning more closely with the long-term average. This pattern suggests that while annual approval rates have varied, recent decisions reflect a return toward the historical mean observed over the last decade.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Oklahoma City hearing office

Christopher Hunt's most recent office on record is Oklahoma City, which serves claimants across Oklahoma. This office maintains a bench of 17 judges who have collectively processed a high volume of cases. In the latest reporting period, the office-wide approval rate was 71%, reflecting the local environment for disability claims.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Oklahoma City

The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 17 judges whose most recent office on record is Oklahoma City, 11 of whom decided cases in the latest SSA file. With approval rates across this bench ranging from 45% to 85%, the specific judge assigned to your hearing can influence the process.

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