SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Douglas A. Wright

Last decided FlorenceSep 2024
Decisions 2,372since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same period to ensure accuracy. The 76% approval rate on record since 2016 provides a long-term view of decision-making, which can be evaluated against the 32% to 76% range observed among other judges whose most recent office on record is the Florence hearing office. These figures rely on a significant volume of cases to establish a statistical baseline. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 76%
Decisions on record 2,372

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Wright. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 27, 2024. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Wright
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY24
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 Douglas A. Wright has shown variation across the 2,372 decisions on record since January 2016. While the rate reached 80% in 2023, it has fluctuated over the years, including 66% in 2019 and 71% in 2024. This trend highlights that while the judge has maintained a high overall approval rate, yearly outcomes can shift based on the specific evidence and medical documentation you present in your case.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Wright'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 Florence hearing office

The Florence hearing office, located in Alabama, serves as the most recent office on record for Douglas A. Wright as of September 2024. This office is part of a regional network that handles disability claims, and the bench consists of 9 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. You can expect a standard administrative hearing process focused on your medical evidence and vocational testimony.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Florence

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 9 judges whose most recent office on record is the Florence hearing office, and their approval rates since 2016 range from 32% to 76%. This variance underscores why the specific evidence in your file is the most critical factor in your hearing outcome.

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