SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Kathryn Bridges

SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Chicago Hearing Office · 11 years on the bench · 17,323 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Judge Bridges maintains a lifetime approval rate of 46% across 17,059 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, the judge recorded an approval rate of 49%, which is 5 percentage points lower than the NHC Chicago office average and 12 points below the national average. This data provides a statistical baseline for the judge's tenure, though aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predictions for your individual hearing.

Metric Judge Bridges NHC Chicago National
Approval rate 46% 54% 58%
Fully favorable 37%
Denials 50%

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

Judge Bridges
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over a 10-year tenure, your judge's approval rate has shown notable fluctuations. After an initial period of lower approval rates in 2016, the rate rose through 2018 before experiencing a decline in 2021 and 2022. Recent data from 2024 and 2025 indicates a return to a 56% approval rate, suggesting a shift in recent decision-making patterns. These trends may reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the quality of evidence presented.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Bridges'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 NHC Chicago hearing office

The NHC Chicago Hearing Office serves a broad population in Illinois and the surrounding region. It is one of three offices where Judge Bridges has presided during a 10-year career. You can expect a high-volume environment where thorough documentation is essential to a successful outcome. You can see the NHC Chicago Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The SSA assigns cases to you using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Within the NHC Chicago office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 41% to 69%. While these variations exist, the fundamental requirements for proving disability remain consistent across all courtrooms. You can find the full ALJ roster on the NHC Chicago hearing office page.

Your odds change dramatically 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