SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. John Kays

Last decided BillingsJul 2026
Decisions 4,170since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

John Kays maintains a 63% approval rate on record since 2016, which sits within the 32% to 70% range of the bench at his most recent office. In the latest reporting period, his 64% approval rate is 1 point higher than the office average and 6 points above the national average. These figures provide statistical context for your hearing, though aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predictions for your individual case.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 63%
Decisions on record 4,170
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Kays Billings National
Approval rate 64% 63% 58%
Fully favorable 60% — —
Denials 36% — —

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

Judge Kays
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 trend for John Kays has shown variation across his 4,170 decisions on record since 2016. While the rate fluctuated between 56% and 72% in recent years, the overall pattern remains consistent with his long-term average. The most recent data from 2026 reflects a fiscal year-to-date rate of 64%, which aligns closely with his historical performance. This stability suggests that his approach to evaluating evidence has remained steady over the last decade.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kays'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 Billings hearing office

John Kays's most recent office on record is Billings, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves you and other claimants across Montana and the surrounding region, maintaining a bench of 13 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. The office-wide approval rate for the latest period is 63%, providing a baseline for the local hearing environment.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Billings

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 13 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and 4 of them decided cases here in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 32% to 70% since 2016.

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