SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Jason A. Lewis

Last decided FlorenceJul 2026
Decisions 2,825since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframes. While your judge's overall approval rate since 2017 is 61%, recent performance can fluctuate based on the specific mix of cases heard. The Florence hearing office bench shows a wide variance, with approval rates ranging from 32% to 76% across different judges on record since 2016. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your specific hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 61%
Decisions on record 2,825
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Lewis Florence National
Approval rate 56% 47% 58%
Fully favorable 52% — —
Denials 44% — —

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

Judge Lewis
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY18FY26
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 Jason A. Lewis has shown shifts across the 2,825 decisions on record since December 2017. After a peak in 2020, the approval rate experienced yearly fluctuations, including a 68% rate in 2025 followed by 58% in the partial 2026 fiscal year. The latest-period approval rate of 56% sits 9 points above the Florence office's latest-period average of 47%. These variations often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the evidence presented.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Lewis'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 Florence hearing office

The most recent office on record for Jason A. Lewis is the Florence hearing office, which serves claimants in Alabama. This office maintains a bench of 9 judges who handle a diverse range of disability claims. The office-wide approval rate in the latest reporting period was 47%.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Florence

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 9 judges whose most recent office on record is the Florence hearing office, and 6 of them decided cases here in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates among this group vary significantly, ranging from 32% to 76% on their records since 2016.

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