Michael Mannes has a lifetime approval rate of 40% over 21,752 decisions, which sits below the national average of 58%. While his recent approval rate of 47% shows a shift, it remains below the Mcalester office average of 51%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An experienced attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's courtroom.
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
Comparing a judge's approval rate to office and national benchmarks provides context for your hearing. Judge Mannes maintains a lifetime approval rate of 40% based on 21,752 decisions, while the latest reporting period shows a 47% approval rate. This latest figure is 11 points lower than the Mcalester office average and 18 points below the national average. 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 Mannes'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 9 years on the bench, Judge Mannes has seen his approval rates fluctuate. After a period of lower approval rates between 2018 and 2019, the trend has shown a gradual increase, reaching 49% in 2024 before settling at 47% in 2025. These shifts often reflect changes in the types of cases assigned or the quality of evidence presented in the courtroom.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Mannes'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 Mannes? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Mcalester hearing office
The Mcalester Hearing Office serves you if you are in Oklahoma and parts of the surrounding region. With a bench of 4 judges, the office manages a significant volume of disability claims. The office currently maintains a latest-period approval rate of 51%. You can find more information about the local administrative environment by visiting the Mcalester Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your judge is selected randomly. At the Mcalester Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 36% to 50%. Because assignment is outside of your control, the most effective strategy is to focus on the strength of your medical evidence.
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.
