Daniel Luker is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Peoria Hearing Office, with a lifetime approval rate of 53% over 3,956 decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%. While these statistics provide a helpful baseline, they represent past trends rather than a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare your case to meet the evidentiary standards required for approval.
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
Judge Luker maintains an approval rate that is 3 percentage points lower than the Peoria Hearing Office average and 5 points below the national benchmark. These figures are derived from 3,956 lifetime decisions. While these metrics offer context, they are not a guarantee of how your specific case will be handled. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual 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 Luker'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
Since joining the bench in 2023, Judge Luker has presided over 3,956 lifetime decisions. Your approval rate was 71% in 2023, 53% in 2024, and 54% in 2025. This trend reflects a consistent approach to case evaluation as your tenure has progressed.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Luker'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 Luker? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Peoria hearing office
The Peoria Hearing Office serves a broad population across Illinois, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an average approval rate of 56%. You can expect a rigorous review process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can see the Peoria Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is essentially random. Across the Peoria Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 42% to 67%. This variance highlights why understanding the local judicial environment is important for your hearing strategy. You can review the full office roster on the Peoria Hearing Office page.
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.
