SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Luke Liter

Last decided Tulsa OHOJul 2026
Decisions 4,487since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

To understand how Luke Liter compares to the broader bench, you can look at approval rates across the same reporting periods. While the judge maintains a 61% approval rate on record since 2016, the bench at the Tulsa OHO shows a wide range of outcomes, from 37% to 81%. In the most recent reporting period, the judge's 58% approval rate sits 5 points below the office average of 63%. These figures provide context for your hearing, though aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than individual outcomes.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 61%
Decisions on record 4,487
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Liter Tulsa OHO National
Approval rate 58% 63% 58%
Fully favorable 41% — —
Denials 42% — —

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

Judge Liter
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 2016, Luke Liter has issued 4,487 decisions. The yearly trend shows variance, with approval rates at 65% in 2016, 67% in 2017, 66% in 2018, 70% in 2019, 45% in 2020, 52% in 2021, 51% in 2022, 68% in 2023, 61% in 2024, 63% in 2025, and 58% in the partial 2026 fiscal year. This latest figure reflects the judge's recent activity within the Tulsa OHO.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Liter'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 Tulsa OHO hearing office

The Tulsa OHO is the most recent office on record for Luke Liter, with the last recorded decision there in July 2026. This office serves claimants across Oklahoma and is staffed by a bench of 15 judges. The office-wide approval rate in the latest reporting period was 63%. You can view the Tulsa OHO Hearing Office page for more information on the local bench.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Tulsa OHO

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 15 judges whose most recent office on record is the Tulsa OHO. Approval rates among this group vary significantly, ranging from 37% to 81% on their records since 2016. Your preparation remains consistent 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