Kerith Cohen is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Norfolk Hearing Office. Over 7 years on the bench, you will find a 56% approval rate across 12,451 lifetime decisions. This is 5 points above the Norfolk average. The office's 6 judges range from 49% to 56% in their lifetime approval rates. Because case assignment is random, the judge you draw matters. An attorney can help you prepare for your hearing.
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 Cohen maintains a lifetime approval rate of 56% based on 12,451 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, this judge approved cases at a rate 5 points higher than the Norfolk Hearing Office average and 4 points higher than the state average. These figures provide context for your hearing, though they represent past trends rather than a guarantee of your outcome.
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 Cohen'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 a 7-year tenure, your judge's approval rate has shifted. Early in the career, rates were higher, reaching 66% in 2016, before transitioning to a range between 52% and 57% through the middle years. The most recent data indicates a rate of 47% in 2022. These fluctuations often reflect changes in the complexity of cases or the specific medical evidence presented during those periods.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Cohen'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 with Judge Cohen? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Norfolk hearing office
The Norfolk Hearing Office serves a significant population across Virginia, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an average approval rate of 51%. You can expect a formal administrative process governed by 20 CFR Part 404 when you appear for your hearing.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Across the Norfolk Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 49% to 56%. Because every judge operates within the same regulatory framework, the core requirements for proving your disability remain consistent regardless of the specific judge assigned to your case.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
