Donald G. Smith maintains a lifetime approval rate of 57% across 29,597 lifetime decisions, which sits slightly below the national average of 58%. While recent data shows a 64% approval rate, aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predictions for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's 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 Smith maintains a lifetime approval rate of 57% based on 29,597 decisions. In the most recent reporting period, the judge recorded an approval rate of 64%, which compares to the office average of 63% and the national average of 58%. These figures provide a statistical look at the judge's history over a decade of service. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not 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 Smith'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
Over 10 years on the bench, your judge's yearly approval rates have fluctuated between a low of 50% in 2022 and a high of 63% in 2025. The trend shows a period of decline between 2018 and 2022, followed by a recent recovery in approval frequency. This latest period reflects a continuation of a more recent upward trend in approvals compared to the mid-tenure dip.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Smith'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 Smith? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the St Petersburg Fl Oho hearing office
The St Petersburg FL OHO serves you across the Florida region, managing a high volume of disability cases with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 63%, reflecting the local administrative environment. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on your medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can see the St Petersburg FL OHO Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The SSA uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the St Petersburg FL OHO, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 38% to 75%. This variance highlights why understanding the general environment of your hearing office is useful.
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.
