Larry Kennedy is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Seattle office with a lifetime approval rate of 36% over 7,260 lifetime decisions. This rate sits below the national average of 58%, though these aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predictions for your specific hearing. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in your preparation. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
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 lifetime approval rate to current office and national benchmarks provides a clear view of their historical decision-making. Judge Kennedy maintains a 36% lifetime approval rate, which sits below the current Seattle Hearing Office average of 58% and the national average of 58%. These figures are derived from a docket of 7,260 lifetime decisions. 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 Kennedy'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 a 4-year tenure, Judge Kennedy has presided over 7,260 lifetime decisions. The yearly trend shows a fluctuating pattern, starting at 30% in 2016, peaking at 44% in 2017, and reaching 33% by 2019. This variance reflects how your judge's approach to complex medical evidence has evolved over time.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kennedy'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 Kennedy? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Seattle hearing office
The Seattle Hearing Office serves a broad population across Washington, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an overall approval rate of 58%. You can expect a formal process focused on your medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can visit the Seattle Hearing Office page for more information on the local roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assigned judge is essentially random. Within the Seattle Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges vary significantly, ranging from 27% to 66%. This diversity in decision-making highlights why your specific evidence and presentation are critical regardless of which judge you are assigned.
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.
