SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Don C. Paris

Last decided LexingtonSep 2017
Decisions 243since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Understanding how a judge compares to their peers requires looking at data from the same period. The approval rates shown here reflect decisions made since 2016, providing a consistent baseline for comparison against the broader bench at the Lexington hearing office. With 243 decisions on record, the data offers a clear view of past activity. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 34%
Decisions on record 243

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Paris. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 29, 2017. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

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.

Judge Paris
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY17
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

The approval rate for Don C. Paris shows a shift over the recorded window of January 2016 through September 2017. While the rate stood at 30% in 2016, it rose to 55% during the 2017 period. This change highlights how approval patterns can fluctuate based on the specific evidence and case mix presented during different intervals. The recent uptick reflects a departure from the earlier, lower approval frequency observed on the record.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Lexington hearing office

Don C. Paris's most recent office on record is the Lexington hearing office, with decisions there through September 2017. This office serves claimants across the Kentucky region and maintains a bench of 18 judges whose most recent office on record is this one. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on the medical and vocational evidence supporting your claim. You can see the Lexington hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Lexington

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. At the Lexington hearing office, there are 18 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, with approval rates ranging from 21% to 79%. Because you cannot choose your judge, focusing on the strength of your medical evidence is the most effective way to prepare. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
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