SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Peter Kimball

Last decided MinneapolisJul 2026
Decisions 4,195since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. Peter Kimball's 53% approval rate since 2016 provides a stable baseline when viewed against the 33% to 68% range of other judges whose most recent office on record is the Minneapolis office. In the most recent reporting period, Peter Kimball's 55% approval rate sits 3 points above the office average of 52%. These aggregate rates reflect past decisions rather than specific outcomes for your claim.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 53%
Decisions on record 4,195
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Kimball Minneapolis National
Approval rate 55% 52% 58%
Fully favorable 41% — —
Denials 45% — —

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

Judge Kimball
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 January 2016, Peter Kimball has issued 4,195 decisions. The approval trend has fluctuated over this period, showing variation between a low of 44% in 2020 and a high of 62% in 2023. The most recent data from 2026 shows a 55% approval rate, which is consistent with the historical average on record since 2016. This pattern indicates that while yearly outcomes vary, the decision-making remains within a stable range.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kimball'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 Minneapolis hearing office

Peter Kimball's most recent office on record is the Minneapolis hearing office, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves the Minnesota region and maintains an office-wide approval rate of 52% for the latest period. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Minneapolis

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 14 judges whose most recent office on record is the Minneapolis office. Approval rates among this bench vary significantly, ranging from 33% to 68% since 2016. Your preparation remains the same 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