SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Jeffrey S. Wolfe

On record 1,800 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

The approval rate for Jeffrey S. Wolfe reflects a significant volume of cases heard since 2016. By comparing this lifetime figure against the 37% to 81% range observed across the Tulsa bench, you can better understand how your assigned judge fits into the broader local context. These statistics rely on a substantial docket of 1,800 decisions, providing a clear view of historical trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 81%
Decisions on record 1,800

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Wolfe. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 25, 2020. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

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 (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

The record for Jeffrey S. Wolfe shows a consistent approval pattern over the period from 2016 to 2020. Starting at 76% in 2016, the annual approval rate has remained steady, reaching 85% in 2020. With 1,800 lifetime decisions on record, this trend indicates a stable approach to evaluating your disability claim. The recent data suggests a continuation of this established pattern, reflecting the judge's consistent application of Social Security Administration standards.

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 scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Tulsa hearing office

The Tulsa hearing office serves you throughout Oklahoma, operating as a critical hub for regional disability determinations. The office maintains a diverse bench of 15 judges on record, ensuring that cases are processed according to federal guidelines. You can expect a formal hearing environment where your evidence quality remains the primary factor in a favorable decision. See the Tulsa Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 15 judges on record at this office since 2016, with 6 judges currently reporting in the latest period. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 37% to 81%. You can find more information on the Tulsa hearing office page.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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