Paul R. Armstrong is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Chicago hearing office. Over 6 years on the bench, Paul R. Armstrong has maintained a 31% lifetime approval rate across 18,806 lifetime decisions. This rate sits below the national average of 58%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's courtroom.
This page presents publicly available SSA Office of Hearings Operations disposition data, with no editorial rating or evaluation. ALJs are independent decisionmakers; aggregate statistics describe past patterns, not predictions of how any individual case will be decided. Information here is provided for hearing preparation, not as legal advice.
Approval rates
Judge Armstrong has issued 18,806 lifetime decisions with an overall approval rate of 31%. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate trailed the NHC Chicago office average by 20 percentage points and the national average by 27 percentage points. These figures are based on a significant volume of cases, providing a stable look at his historical decision-making tendencies. These aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of your specific hearing.
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 Armstrong's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.
Decision pattern
Over his 6-year tenure, your judge's approval rate has shown notable variance. Starting at 25% in 2016, the rate saw a gradual increase, peaking at 42% in 2020 before settling at 40% in 2021. This trend reflects how his approach to evidence and case requirements has evolved over time across his 18,806 lifetime decisions.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Armstrong'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.
About the NHC Chicago hearing office
The NHC Chicago hearing office serves you throughout Illinois and the surrounding region. This office manages a high volume of cases with a bench of 6 judges. With an office-wide latest approval rate of 51%, it remains a critical hub for disability adjudication in the Midwest. You can visit the NHC Chicago Hearing Office page for more information on the local roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is essentially random. At the NHC Chicago hearing office, the bench consists of 6 judges with lifetime approval rates ranging from 31% to 69%. Because you cannot choose your judge, it is important to focus on the strength of your medical evidence regardless of your specific assignment.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.



