Donald A. Rising is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Middlesboro office, where you will find a 59% lifetime approval rate across 7,308 decisions. This sits slightly above the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in your preparation. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific bench.
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
Judge Rising’s approval rate is measured against the Middlesboro Hearing Office and national benchmarks to provide context for his decision-making history. Over his 5 years on the bench, he has maintained a consistent volume of cases. While his latest reporting period shows a rate 6 points above the state average, these aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than 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 Rising'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
The yearly trend for Judge Rising shows a shift, moving from a 50% approval rate in his early tenure to a peak of 70% in 2018. Following this period, the rate was 62% in 2019 and 62% in 2020. This pattern suggests that the judge’s approach to evaluating evidence has evolved over his 5 years on the bench.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Rising'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 Rising? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Middlesboro hearing office
The Middlesboro Hearing Office serves a broad population across the region, managing a high volume of SSDI claims with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently reports an approval rate of 52%, which serves as a baseline for the local caseload. You can see the Middlesboro 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 your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Middlesboro Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 46% to 59%. Because you cannot choose your judge, focusing on the quality of your medical evidence remains the most effective way to prepare.
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.
