SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Jack D. McCarthy

Position Administrative Law Judge
On record SSA records since 2016
Decisions 983 lifetime

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Understanding how a judge compares to their peers requires looking at consistent data sets. At the Kansas City hearing office, the bench shows a wide range of lifetime approval rates, spanning from 33% to 77%. By reviewing these figures, you can better understand the environment of your hearing. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your specific case.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 59%
Decisions on record 983

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge McCarthy. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 27, 2019. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge McCarthy's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge McCarthy
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY19
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

Judge McCarthy has maintained a consistent record since 2016. His yearly approval rates were 59% in 2016, 57% in 2017, 61% in 2018, and 54% in 2019. This trend indicates a steady approach to evaluating disability claims over his time on the bench. Because each case presents unique medical evidence and vocational factors, these yearly shifts often reflect changes in the specific mix of cases heard rather than a change in judicial philosophy.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge McCarthy'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 Kansas City hearing office

The Kansas City hearing office serves the surrounding region of Missouri, managing a diverse caseload of disability claims. The office bench consists of 17 judges on record, reflecting the volume of hearings processed in this area. You can expect a formal environment where medical documentation and vocational testimony are prioritized. You can view the Kansas City Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 17 judges on record at this office since 2016, 12 of whom reported in the latest period. With approval rates across the bench ranging from 33% to 77%, the specific judge assigned to your case is a significant variable. You can prepare for your hearing with the same diligence regardless of which judge is assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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