Peter Jung is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Kansas City office. Over 10 years and 18,993 lifetime decisions, he has maintained a 51% approval rate. While his latest period shows a 62% approval rate, this remains 7 points below the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of your hearing.
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
Comparing a judge's performance requires looking at both their long-term history and recent activity. Judge Jung has issued 18,489 lifetime decisions. While the judge's lifetime approval rate sits at 51%, recent reporting shows a 62% approval rate, which compares to the office average of 54%, the state average of 52%, and the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.
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 Jung'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 the past decade, your judge's approval patterns have shown a gradual shift. Starting with a 45% approval rate in 2016, the trend has moved upward, reaching 61% in 2025. This progression suggests that the judge's approach to case evaluation has evolved over their 10 years on the bench. The recent period reflects a continuation of this upward trend.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Jung'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 Jung? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Kansas City hearing office
The Kansas City (Missouri) Hearing Office manages a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 54%. You can expect a standard administrative hearing process focused on medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can visit the Kansas City (Missouri) Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the Kansas City (Missouri) office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 28% to 61%. Because case assignment is outside your control, focusing on the strength of your medical evidence is the most effective way to prepare.
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.
