SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Noran J. Camp

Last decided BostonSep 2019
Decisions 446since 2017

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent timeframes to ensure accuracy. This judge's approval rate on record since 2017 is 64% across 446 decisions, which you can evaluate against the 37% to 75% range observed among the 15 judges whose most recent office on record is the Boston hearing office. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding how different judges have historically approached their dockets. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2017
Approval rate 64%
Decisions on record 446

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Camp. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 27, 2019. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Camp
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY19
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 Noran J. Camp shifted over the period of 2017 to 2019. Starting at 77% in 2017, the approval rate moved to 64% in 2018 and 59% in 2019 across a total of 446 decisions on record. This trend indicates a decline in the approval rate over the three-year window. Such patterns often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the specific evidence presented in those dockets.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Camp'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 Boston hearing office

The Boston hearing office serves you and other claimants throughout the region. With 15 judges whose most recent office on record is this location, the office manages a diverse range of disability claims. The office-wide latest-period approval rate is 54%, which provides context for the local environment. You can see the Boston hearing office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Boston

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 15 judges whose most recent office on record is the Boston hearing office, with approval rates ranging from 37% to 75%. Because each judge has a unique approach to evaluating evidence, understanding the broader office bench is helpful. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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