SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Bonnie Kittinger

Last decided LexingtonSep 2017
Decisions 597since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

When evaluating your hearing, it is helpful to compare a judge's performance against the broader bench. The approval rates on record since 2016 for judges whose most recent office on record is the Lexington hearing office range from 21% to 79%. This variance highlights the importance of understanding the patterns associated with your assigned judge. These figures are based on 597 decisions on record since 2016, providing a view of past activity.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 28%
Decisions on record 597

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Kittinger. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 29, 2017. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Kittinger's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Kittinger
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY17
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 rate for Bonnie Kittinger has remained within a consistent range across the 597 decisions on record since 2016. In 2016, the approval rate was 27% over 522 decisions, followed by 29% over 184 decisions in 2017. This trend indicates a steady pattern of decision-making throughout the recorded period, suggesting that the methodology remained stable during the time the judge was active at this office.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kittinger'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 Lexington hearing office

The Lexington hearing office serves you and other claimants across the region. There are 18 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. You can expect a formal process where the quality of your medical evidence and testimony remains the primary factor in a decision. For more information on the local bench, see the Lexington hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Lexington

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 18 judges whose most recent office on record is the Lexington hearing office, with approval rates ranging from 21% to 79% on their since-2016 records. While these figures provide context for the office, they do not dictate the outcome of your specific hearing.

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