SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Kim D. Parrish

On record 4,749 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rates for Kim D. Parrish reflect a consistent history of decision-making within the Oklahoma City hearing office. When comparing the latest-period approval rate of 69% against the office-wide latest-period rate of 71%, the data shows a 2-point difference. These figures are supported by a substantial docket of 4,749 lifetime decisions, providing a stable view of the record. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 63%
Decisions on record 4,749
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Parrish Oklahoma City National
Approval rate 69% 71% 58%
Fully favorable 66%
Denials 31%

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%FY16FY26
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

Since 2016, the decision pattern for Kim D. Parrish has shown a gradual upward trend in approval rates. While the lifetime average sits at 63%, recent years have seen cases approved at or near the 69% to 70% mark. This shift suggests that the approach to evidence and case requirements has evolved from the earlier years of the record. The latest period reflects a continuation of this steady pattern.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Oklahoma City hearing office

The Oklahoma City hearing office serves you throughout the region, managing a diverse caseload of disability applications. With 17 judges on record, the office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 71%. You can expect a formal hearing process where the quality of your medical evidence remains the primary factor in the outcome. See the Oklahoma 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, 11 of whom reported in the latest period. These judges exhibit a wide range of lifetime approval rates, spanning from 45% to 85%. For your preparation, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are 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