SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. John Priester

Last decided Des MoinesJul 2026
Decisions 2,913since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rate for John Priester is calculated from 2,913 decisions on record since 2016. This figure provides a baseline for understanding his decision-making patterns compared to the 37% to 70% range observed among the bench at the Des Moines hearing office. In the most recent reporting period, his 59% approval rate sits 6 points above the office average of 53%. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 65%
Decisions on record 2,913
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Priester Des Moines National
Approval rate 59% 53% 58%
Fully favorable 44% — —
Denials 41% — —

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

Judge Priester
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY26
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 approval rate for John Priester has shown fluctuations, peaking at 74% in 2017 before trending toward 59% in the most recent fiscal year. This 2,913-decision record reflects how he has navigated shifts in case volume and evidence standards over the last decade. The latest period shows a continuation of this pattern, remaining slightly above the office-wide average.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Priester'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 Des Moines hearing office

The Des Moines hearing office serves you and other claimants across Iowa and is a key hub for regional disability adjudications. With 10 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, the office maintains a collective latest-period approval rate of 53%. You can expect a review process where the quality of your medical evidence remains the primary factor in your hearing outcome.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Des Moines

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you draw is essentially random. There are 10 judges whose most recent office on record is the Des Moines hearing office, 7 of whom decided cases here in the latest file from July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 37% to 70% on their since-2016 records.

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