SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Jodi B. Levine

Last decided Oklahoma CityJul 2026
Decisions 3,463since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. Jodi B. Levine's 70% approval rate since 2016 is evaluated against the 45% to 85% range of the 17 judges whose most recent office on record is Oklahoma City. In the most recent reporting period, the 85% approval rate sits 14 points above the office average of 71%, 17 points above the state average of 68%, and 27 points above the national average of 58%.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 70%
Decisions on record 3,463
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Levine Oklahoma City National
Approval rate 85% 71% 58%
Fully favorable 80% — —
Denials 15% — —

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

Judge Levine
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, Jodi B. Levine has issued 3,463 decisions. The approval trend shows a period of relative stability followed by a notable upward shift in recent years. While the rate hovered between 63% and 72% from 2016 through 2023, the last two full years saw approval rates of 82% and 86% respectively. The latest period reflects a continuation of this recent pattern.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Levine'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 Oklahoma City hearing office

The Oklahoma City hearing office serves you and other claimants across Oklahoma. With 17 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 71%. You can expect a formal administrative process where evidence quality remains the primary driver of your outcome.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Oklahoma City

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 17 judges whose most recent office on record is the Oklahoma City hearing office, and 11 of them decided cases here in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 45% to 85% on their since-2016 records.

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