SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Francis Hurley

Last decided BostonJul 2026
Decisions 2,843since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing Francis Hurley's 65% approval rate against the local bench provides context for how your hearing may proceed. The judges whose most recent office on record is Boston show a wide range of approval rates, spanning from 37% to 75% since 2016. In the most recent reporting period, Francis Hurley maintained a 67% approval rate, which sits 13 points above the Boston office's latest-period average of 54%.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 65%
Decisions on record 2,843
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Hurley Boston National
Approval rate 67% 54% 58%
Fully favorable 56% — —
Denials 33% — —

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%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, Francis Hurley has issued 2,843 decisions with a generally steady approval trend. While yearly figures have fluctuated—ranging from a low of 61% in 2021 to a high of 72% in 2024—the performance remains consistent with the long-term average. The most recent period shows a 67% approval rate, which aligns closely with the historical record. This pattern suggests a stable approach to evaluating evidence.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Boston hearing office

The Boston hearing office serves you if you are in Massachusetts and the surrounding region. With 15 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, it manages a significant volume of disability hearings. The office-wide approval rate in the latest period was 54%, which provides a baseline for the local administrative environment.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Boston

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 15 judges whose most recent office on record is the Boston hearing office, and 6 of them decided cases here in the latest file from July 2026. Because approval rates across this bench vary from 37% to 75%, understanding the local landscape is useful.

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