SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Christopher Van Dyck

Last decided Fort WorthSep 2025
Decisions 3,411since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing judicial approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. The 53% approval rate for Christopher Van Dyck reflects his total decisions on record since 2016, which provides a sample size of 3,411 cases. This figure can be viewed alongside the broader bench at the Fort Worth hearing office, where peers range from 32% to 63% approval on their respective records. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 53%
Decisions on record 3,411

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Van Dyck. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 26, 2025. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Van Dyck's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Van Dyck
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
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 approval rate for Christopher Van Dyck has fluctuated over the years, starting at 52% in 2016 and reaching 57% in 2024. Throughout the 3,411 decisions on record since 2016, the trend has shown periods of both higher and lower activity, reflecting the inherent variability in disability case evidence. While the 2025 data represents a partial year, the overall pattern suggests a judge who evaluates each claim based on its unique medical and vocational evidence.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Van Dyck'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 Fort Worth hearing office

The Fort Worth hearing office serves claimants across Texas and is part of a regional network dedicated to processing disability appeals. With 15 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, the office manages a diverse caseload. You can expect a formal administrative process where evidence quality is the primary factor in your outcome.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Fort Worth

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 15 judges whose most recent office on record is the Fort Worth hearing office, with 6 of them having decided cases in the latest available SSA file. Because approval rates across this bench range from 32% to 63%, understanding the local context is helpful for your preparation.

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