SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Gal Lahat

Last decided Dallas DowntownJul 2026
Decisions 2,865since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While the 69% approval rate since 2016 provides a long-term view, the latest-period data shows a 65% approval rate, which sits 7 percentage points above the Dallas Downtown office average of 58%. These figures are derived from a docket of 2,865 decisions. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your specific hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 69%
Decisions on record 2,865
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Lahat Dallas Downtown National
Approval rate 65% 58% 58%
Fully favorable 60% — —
Denials 35% — —

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

Judge Lahat
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, your approval rate has varied, beginning at 77% and fluctuating over the following years. The most recent data from 2026 shows a 65% approval rate, which is lower than the long-term average of 69%. This latest period reflects a continuation of the established decision-making pattern, which has remained within a consistent range throughout the observation window.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Lahat'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 Dallas Downtown hearing office

The Dallas Downtown hearing office maintains a bench of 18 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. The office-wide approval rate for the latest period is 58%, providing a benchmark for the local judicial environment. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on the specific evidence of your disability claim.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Dallas Downtown

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 Dallas Downtown office. Approval rates for this bench range from 21% to 76% based on records 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