Thomas W. Erwin is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Roanoke Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 59% over 24,148 decisions. This sits slightly above the national average of 58%. While recent trends show a 63% approval rate, aggregate data describes past decisions, not predictions for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of your courtroom appearance.
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 Erwin maintains a lifetime approval rate of 59%, which aligns with the current Roanoke Hearing Office average of 59% and exceeds the national average of 58%. This data is drawn from a career docket of 24,148 lifetime decisions, providing a stable baseline for understanding his typical decision-making patterns. 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 Erwin'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 10 years on the bench, Judge Erwin has shown a varied approval trend. While his rates fluctuated between 52% and 61% during the middle of his tenure, recent years have seen an uptick, with approval rates reaching 64% to 66% in the 2023-2025 period. These patterns reflect the evolving nature of his caseload and the specific evidence presented in recent hearings.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Erwin'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?
About the Roanoke hearing office
The Roanoke Hearing Office serves a broad population across Virginia, managing a high volume of disability claims with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 59%, reflecting regional trends in case outcomes. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on medical evidence and vocational testimony. See the Roanoke Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning you cannot request a specific judge. At the Roanoke Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 45% to 67%. This variance highlights why it is important to be prepared for any judge assigned to your hearing. You can find more information on the office's general operations on the Roanoke Hearing Office page.
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.
