SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Jeffrey S. Wolfe

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Tulsa Hearing Office · 5 years on the bench · 11,448 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled with Judge Wolfe?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Your judge's approval rate stands at 81%, which is 17 percentage points above the Tulsa Hearing Office average and 23 percentage points above the national average. These figures are based on 11,448 lifetime decisions, providing a clear view of historical decision-making tendencies. Aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your specific hearing.

Metric Judge Wolfe Tulsa National
Approval rate 81% 64% 58%
Fully favorable 69%
Denials 19%

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

Judge Wolfe
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY20
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over 5 years on the bench, your judge has maintained a consistent approval pattern, with annual rates ranging from 76% to 86%. The data shows a stable trend, with the most recent reporting period reflecting a continuation of this high approval frequency. This consistency suggests that the approach to evaluating disability evidence has remained steady throughout the judge's tenure.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Wolfe'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 Wolfe? See if a free benefits review fits your case.

Free Benefits Review
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Tulsa hearing office

The Tulsa Hearing Office serves a broad population across the region, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office handles a diverse caseload that requires careful attention to medical and vocational evidence. You can expect a formal process focused on the specific requirements of your claim. You can see the Tulsa Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The SSA assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is essentially random. Within the Tulsa Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 38% to 81%. Because of this variance, understanding the tendencies of your assigned judge is a standard part of hearing preparation. You can find more information on the Tulsa Hearing Office page.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Free Benefits Review

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