Roger Lott has a lifetime approval rate of 57% across 22,122 lifetime decisions, which sits just below the national average of 58%. While his most recent approval rate reached 64%, these figures represent past trends rather than a guarantee for your specific hearing. Because your SSDI outcome depends heavily on medical evidence, an attorney can help you prepare a case tailored to 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
To understand the context of your hearing, it is helpful to look at how your judge’s approval rates compare to broader benchmarks. His lifetime approval rate of 57% is derived from a docket of 22,122 lifetime decisions accumulated over a decade of service. While his latest approval rate of 64% shows recent variance, these numbers serve as a statistical observation rather than a prediction for your specific hearing.
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 Lott'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 10 years on the bench, your judge has maintained a consistent approach to disability adjudication. His yearly approval trends show fluctuations, ranging from a low of 51% in 2021 to a recent high of 64% in 2025. This pattern suggests that while his decision-making remains steady, recent shifts may reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence presented.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Lott'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 Lott? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Tupelo hearing office
The Tupelo Hearing Office serves claimants across Mississippi and the surrounding region. With a bench of 6 judges, the office manages a high volume of cases to ensure timely processing for those seeking benefits. The office-wide latest approval rate is 67%, providing a local benchmark for your claim.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Tupelo Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 19% to 64%. Regardless of which judge is assigned to your case, the fundamental requirements for proving your disability remain the same.
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.
