SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Douglas S. Stults

Last decided Oklahoma CityJul 2026
Decisions 4,172since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. While your judge has an overall approval rate of 69% since 2016, his latest-period performance shows an 83% approval rate. This latest figure sits 12 percentage points above the Oklahoma City office average of 71%, 15 points above the state average of 68%, and 25 points above the national average of 58%. These figures are based on thousands of decisions, providing a robust sample size.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 69%
Decisions on record 4,172
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Stults Oklahoma City National
Approval rate 83% 71% 58%
Fully favorable 82% — —
Denials 17% — —

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

Judge Stults
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 approval rate for your judge has shown an upward trend. Starting at 56% in 2016, the rate reached 83% in the most recent partial fiscal year of 2026. This latest period represents a notable increase compared to your judge's long-term average on record. Such shifts in approval patterns often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence presented.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Stults'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 and other claimants throughout the region. There are 17 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. The office maintains a latest-period approval rate of 71%, which provides a benchmark for the local judicial environment. You can see the Oklahoma City Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Oklahoma City

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 17 judges whose most recent office on record is the Oklahoma City office, and 11 of them decided cases here in the latest file from July 2026. Approval rates for this bench range from 45% to 85% based on their records since 2016.

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