SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. David Johnson

Last decided TacomaJul 2026
Decisions 3,952since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing David Johnson's performance requires looking at consistent data windows. While the judge has a 49% approval rate across 3,952 decisions since 2016, the office bench shows a wide range of outcomes from 30% to 78%. In the most recent reporting period, the judge's 43% approval rate sits 15 percentage points below the office average of 58%. These figures reflect historical trends rather than individual case outcomes.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 49%
Decisions on record 3,952
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Johnson Tacoma National
Approval rate 43% 58% 58%
Fully favorable 37% — —
Denials 57% — —

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

Judge Johnson
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

The approval rate for David Johnson has fluctuated since 2016. After maintaining rates near 51% through 2019, the data shows a period of lower approval before returning to 52% in 2024. The most recent fiscal year-to-date figure of 43% indicates a divergence from the long-term average. This recent pattern may reflect changes in case mix or evidence quality presented at your hearing.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Johnson'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 Tacoma hearing office

The Tacoma hearing office serves you and other claimants across Washington. With 17 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, the office maintains an office-wide approval rate of 58% in the latest reporting period. You can expect a formal administrative process where evidence quality is the primary driver of the outcome. You can see the Tacoma hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Tacoma

The Social Security Administration uses 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 the Tacoma hearing office. Approval rates among this group vary significantly, ranging from 30% to 78% on their records since 2016. Your preparation remains consistent regardless of which judge is assigned to your case.

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