Don C. Paris maintains a lifetime approval rate of 34% across 1,892 lifetime decisions, which sits below the national average of 58%. While this pattern is distinct, remember that aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare your case to meet the evidentiary standards required in this 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 performance to broader benchmarks provides context for your hearing. Judge Paris currently shows an approval rate that trails the Lexington Hearing Office average by 18 percentage points and the national average by 24 percentage points. These figures are derived from a docket of 1,892 lifetime decisions accumulated over two years on the bench. 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 Paris'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 two-year tenure, the decision pattern for Judge Paris has shown movement. Starting with a 30% approval rate in 2016, the data indicates an uptick to 55% during the 2017 reporting period. Such trends are common as judges settle into their caseloads and refine their approach to complex medical documentation.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Paris'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 Paris? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Lexington hearing office
The Lexington Hearing Office serves a broad population across Kentucky, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of six judges, the office maintains an approval rate that reflects the diverse nature of the cases heard in this region. You should be prepared for a rigorous review of your medical records and vocational history. You can see the Lexington Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the Lexington Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 34% to 54%. Because case assignment is outside of your control, the best approach 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.
