John D. Sullivan has a lifetime approval rate of 59% across 23,874 lifetime decisions. This sits above the national average of 58%, and his latest period shows a 67% approval rate. While these figures provide context, they are a reflection of past decisions, not a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare your case to meet the evidentiary standards this judge expects.
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
Evaluating your chances begins with understanding the judge's historical data. Over 10 years on the bench, Judge Sullivan has maintained a 59% approval rate. In the most recent reporting period, his 67% approval rate compares to the Eugene Hearing Office average of 64% and the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.
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 Sullivan'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 career trajectory of Judge Sullivan shows an upward trend in approval rates since 2016. After starting with a 46% approval rate in his first year, the data shows a rise, reaching 71% in 2025. This shift suggests a move toward higher allowance rates compared to his early tenure. The recent data reflects a continuation of this pattern, indicating that his current decision-making process is more favorable than his historical lifetime average.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Sullivan'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 Sullivan? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Check My BenefitsAbout the Eugene hearing office
The Eugene Hearing Office serves you throughout Oregon, managing a high volume of disability cases. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an environment where evidence quality and medical documentation are the primary drivers of success. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on the specific requirements of the Social Security Administration.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Eugene Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 44% to 81%. Because each judge brings a unique perspective to the evidence, the variance across the office is a standard part of the hearing process.
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.
