Lantz McClain is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Tulsa hearing office. Over 5 years on the bench and 15,747 lifetime decisions, the judge has maintained a 38% approval rate. This sits below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, understanding these patterns is helpful for your preparation. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific 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
Comparing a judge's approval rate to broader office and national benchmarks provides context for your hearing. Judge McClain has maintained a 38% approval rate over 15,747 lifetime decisions. This figure sits lower than the 64% latest approval rate for the Tulsa office and the 58% national average. These figures represent historical trends rather than specific outcomes for your case.
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 McClain'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 a 5-year tenure and 15,747 decisions, your judge's approval rate has fluctuated. While the rate remained between 39% and 42% from 2016 through 2019, the most recent reporting period saw a decline to 29%. This trend reflects a shift in the volume or nature of cases reaching the bench.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge McClain'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 McClain? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Tulsa hearing office
The Tulsa Hearing Office serves claimants across Oklahoma, managing a high volume of disability cases. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a latest approval rate of 64%, which is higher than the national average. You can expect a formal process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can visit the Tulsa Hearing Office page for more information on the local 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. Approval rates across the 6 judges at the Tulsa office vary significantly, ranging from 38% to 81% over their respective careers. Because of this variance, understanding the local bench is a standard part of your case preparation.
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.
