SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Emilie Kraft

Last decided BirminghamJul 2026
Decisions 3,937since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While the bench at the Birmingham office shows a range of outcomes from 28% to 85% on their records since 2016, Emilie Kraft maintains a 52% approval rate over the same period. In the most recent reporting period, her 54% approval rate sits 5 points above the office average of 49%. These figures reflect historical trends rather than individual case outcomes.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 52%
Decisions on record 3,937
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Kraft Birmingham National
Approval rate 54% 49% 58%
Fully favorable 47% — —
Denials 46% — —

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

Judge Kraft
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 Emilie Kraft has fluctuated since 2016, moving from 53% in 2016 to 55% in the partial 2026 fiscal year. With 3,937 total decisions on record, the data reflects a consistent approach to case evaluation. The latest period shows a slight increase compared to the overall average, providing a baseline for understanding how evidence is weighed in this courtroom.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kraft'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 Birmingham hearing office

Emilie Kraft's most recent office on record is the Birmingham hearing office, with decisions there through July 2026. This office serves claimants across Alabama and is part of a regional network responsible for processing disability claims. With 23 judges on the bench, the office maintains an office-wide latest approval rate of 49%.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Birmingham

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 23 judges whose most recent office on record is the Birmingham office. Because approval rates across this bench vary significantly, the specific judge assigned to your case is a factor in the process. Preparation remains essential regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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