Kristen King is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Cincinnati Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 65% across 10,985 decisions. This rate sits above the national average of 58%. While these figures offer a probability cloud from past decisions, they are not a prediction for your specific hearing. Working with a qualified attorney can help you organize your medical evidence to meet the specific standards of this 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
Judge King maintains a lifetime approval rate of 65% based on 10,985 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, this rate sits 9 points higher than the Cincinnati Hearing Office average and 7 points above the national average of 58%. These figures provide a statistical look at past performance, though they do not guarantee a specific outcome for your 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 King'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 8 years on the bench, Judge King has seen a notable shift in approval trends. While early years showed rates near 49%, recent data indicates an upward trend, reaching 91% in the most recent reporting year. This trajectory reflects a move away from the lifetime average of 65% in favor of higher allowance rates. The recent uptick 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 King'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 King? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Cincinnati hearing office
The Cincinnati Hearing Office serves a large population across Ohio, managing a high volume of disability claims. With 6 judges on the bench, the office maintains an average approval rate of 56%. You can expect a formal process focused on your medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can visit the Cincinnati 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. Across the 6 judges at the Cincinnati Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates range from 37% to 73%. Because of this variance, understanding the local bench is helpful for setting expectations.
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.
