SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Davis Yee

Last decided San JoseJul 2026
Decisions 732since 2023

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes. Davis Yee's 63% approval rate since 2023 is measured against the 51% to 78% range of the San Jose bench's records. In the latest reporting period, Davis Yee maintained a 65% approval rate, which sits 4 points above the office average of 61%. These figures rely on a significant volume of decisions, providing a stable basis for analysis.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2023
Approval rate 63%
Decisions on record 732
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Yee San Jose National
Approval rate 65% 61% 58%
Fully favorable 48% — —
Denials 35% — —

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

Judge Yee
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY24FY26
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

Since November 2023, Davis Yee has issued 732 decisions. The yearly trend shows a steady progression, with approval rates moving from 61% in 2024 to 62% in 2025, and reaching 65% in the partial 2026 fiscal year. This latest period reflects a continuation of a consistent pattern in decision-making. The data suggests that the recent output remains aligned with the established record, providing a clear view of how cases have been handled over the last three years.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Yee'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 San Jose hearing office

The San Jose Hearing Office serves you in the California region. This office features a bench of 10 judges, with an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 61%. You can expect a standard administrative process focused on the specific medical evidence you present. To learn more about the local bench, see the San Jose Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is San Jose

The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 10 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and 3 of them decided cases here in the latest file through July 2026. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 51% to 78%.

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