SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. C. Rene Strong

Last decided MontgomeryJul 2026
Decisions 239since 2026

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same period to ensure accuracy. While the 92% approval rate covers all 239 decisions on record since 2026, the latest-period figures provide a more immediate look at recent trends. In the latest period, this 92% approval rate sits 21 points above the Montgomery office average of 71%. These figures reflect historical patterns rather than individual case outcomes.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2026
Approval rate 92%
Decisions on record 239
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Strong Montgomery National
Approval rate 92% 71% 58%
Fully favorable 86% — —
Denials 8% — —

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

Judge Strong
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY26
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

The 92% approval rate is based on 239 decisions on record since 2026. During 2026, a 92% approval rate was recorded across the docket. This recent data indicates a high rate of allowance compared to broader benchmarks. Because the data window is limited to this recent period, the pattern reflects a consistent approach to case evaluation.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Strong'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 Montgomery hearing office

C. Rene Strong's most recent office on record is the Montgomery hearing office, with the last recorded decision there in July 2026. This office serves claimants across Alabama. The bench consists of 17 judges with varying approval rates, and the office-wide approval rate for the latest period is 71%. You can generally expect a standard hearing process focused on your medical evidence.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Montgomery

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 17 judges whose most recent office on record is the Montgomery hearing office, and 9 of them decided cases here in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates for this bench range from 21% to 92% on their records. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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