SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. E. Norman Graham

Last decided GreensboroSep 2019
Decisions 1,216since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

This table displays the approval rate for E. Norman Graham based on his total decisions on record since 2016. We compare this figure against the range of other judges who have decided cases at the Greensboro office in SSA's latest file. These statistics rely on 1,216 total decisions to provide a clear view of past activity. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 89%
Decisions on record 1,216

Judge Graham is not in SSA's latest disposition file, so there is no 12-month figure. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 27, 2019. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Judge Graham isn't in SSA's latest disposition file, so the judge comparison tool, which compares active judges over the same 12 months, leaves them out.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Graham
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY19
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

E. Norman Graham decided 1,216 cases between 2016 and 2019. His approval rate showed a steady upward trend during this period, beginning at 86% in 2016 and reaching 91% by 2019. This pattern reflects the consistent outcomes observed across his total record on file. The data captures these decisions as they occurred, providing a historical view of his activity at the Greensboro office.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Graham'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 Greensboro hearing office

The Greensboro hearing office serves you across North Carolina and the surrounding region. There are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, with 8 of them having decided cases here in SSA's latest file. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on the specific medical and vocational evidence presented in your file.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Greensboro

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. Approval rates vary across the Greensboro bench, with the 8 judges who decided cases here in SSA's latest file ranging from 52% to 85% on their since-2016 records. There are 16 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, 8 of whom decided cases here in SSA's latest file.

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