SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Francis Hurley

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Boston Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 16,331 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled with Judge Hurley?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's performance to broader benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Hurley currently holds a 62% approval rate in the latest reporting period, which sits 7 points above the national average of 58% and 12 points above the Boston Hearing Office average of 53%. These figures are derived from a significant docket of 16,331 lifetime decisions, offering a stable view of past trends.

Metric Judge Hurley Boston National
Approval rate 65% 53% 58%
Fully favorable 56%
Denials 38%

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 Hurley's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Hurley
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over a decade on the bench, Judge Hurley has maintained a consistent approval pattern. While yearly fluctuations occur, such as the 59% rate in 2021 and the 69% rate in 2024, the overall trend remains steady. With 16,331 lifetime decisions, the judge demonstrates a reliable approach to evaluating evidence. The latest reporting period shows a 62% approval rate, reflecting a continuation of this long-term pattern.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Hurley'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 Hurley? See if a free benefits review fits your case.

Free Benefits Review
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Boston hearing office

The Boston Hearing Office serves you across Massachusetts, managing a high volume of cases within the New England Region. The office is staffed by 6 judges who handle a diverse range of disability claims. With an office-wide latest approval rate of 53%, you should be prepared for a thorough review of your medical and vocational evidence.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is essentially random. Within the Boston Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 37% to 65%. Because each judge brings a unique perspective to the hearing room, understanding the office-wide environment is helpful.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Free Benefits Review

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