David Kurtz is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Flint Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 54% across 16,091 decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, the judge you draw matters. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's 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 Kurtz maintains a lifetime approval rate of 54%, a figure derived from 16,091 total decisions during his 8-year tenure. When compared to the most recent reporting period, his approval rate sits 3 percentage points lower than the Flint Hearing Office average and 4 points below the national average of 58%. These figures provide a statistical baseline for his courtroom, though they are not predictive of your individual outcome.
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 Kurtz'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 his 8 years on the bench, Judge Kurtz has seen his approval rates shift, starting at 52% in 2016 and reaching a peak of 61% in 2022 before settling at 56% in 2023. With 16,091 lifetime decisions, his pattern reflects a consistent approach to evaluating disability claims. The recent data suggests a return to his long-term average after a period of higher approval frequency.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Kurtz'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 Kurtz? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Flint hearing office
The Flint Hearing Office serves a significant population across Michigan, managing a high volume of SSDI claims with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 57%, reflecting the broader regional trends in disability adjudication. You should be prepared for a formal process centered on medical documentation and vocational testimony.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to Judge Kurtz is essentially random. Across the Flint Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates for the 6 judges on the bench range from 43% to 60%. Because each judge manages their own docket, the specific judge you draw can influence the rhythm of your hearing.
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.
