SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Kim D. Parrish

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Oklahoma City Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 28,092 lifetime decisions

Check My Benefits →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing a judge's lifetime performance against recent office and national benchmarks provides helpful context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Parrish has presided over 28,092 lifetime decisions, a volume that offers a statistically significant look at their decision-making history. While the latest approval rate of 70% sits above the national average, it remains a point of comparison rather than a guarantee of your specific outcome.

Metric Judge Parrish Oklahoma City National
Approval rate 63% 73% 58%
Fully favorable 66%
Denials 30%

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 Parrish's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Parrish
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over a decade on the bench, Judge Parrish has shown a steady trajectory in approval patterns. After starting with rates in the mid-50s, the data indicates a rise in approvals over the last several years, reaching 70% in the most recent reporting period. This trend reflects a consistent approach to evaluating evidence and disability claims, providing a stable baseline for understanding how your case may be reviewed.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Parrish'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 Parrish? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.

Check My Benefits
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Oklahoma City hearing office

The Oklahoma City Hearing Office serves a large population across the region, managing a high volume of disability cases. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an environment where case processing is standardized, though individual judge patterns vary. You can visit the Oklahoma City 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 the judge you draw is essentially random. Within the Oklahoma City Hearing Office, the 6 ALJs show a wide range of lifetime approval rates, spanning from 43% to 79%. Because you cannot choose your judge, your focus should remain on the strength and clarity of your medical evidence.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Check My Benefits

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