Matthew C. Dawson is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Omaha Hearing Office, where he has maintained a 42% lifetime approval rate over 13,408 lifetime decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%, though aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predictions for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's bench.
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 Dawson has maintained a lifetime approval rate of 42% over 13,408 decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate was 46%, which compares to the Omaha Hearing Office average of 51% and the national average of 58%. These figures are based on a significant volume of cases, providing a stable look at historical trends. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual 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 Dawson'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 8 years on the bench, Judge Dawson has seen his approval rates fluctuate, showing a shift from 32% in 2018 and 2019 to a more recent range between 48% and 51% in 2024 and 2025. The latest period reflects a continuation of this more recent, higher approval pattern compared to his early tenure. These trends illustrate how the judge's approach has evolved over time.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Dawson'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 Dawson? See if a free benefits review fits your case.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Omaha hearing office
The Omaha Hearing Office serves you across Nebraska and surrounding regions, managing a high volume of disability appeals. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains an overall approval rate that reflects broader regional trends. You should be prepared for a thorough review of medical documentation and vocational evidence. You can visit the Omaha Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. At the Omaha Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 30% to 78%, highlighting the variance you might encounter. Regardless of which judge is assigned to your case, the core requirements for proving disability remain consistent.
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.
