SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Brien Horan

SSA Administrative Law Judge at the New Haven Hearing Office · 5 years on the bench · 5,355 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled?

Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Judge Horan maintains a lifetime approval rate of 55%, a figure derived from 5,355 lifetime decisions made during his tenure. When comparing his most recent reporting period to the broader landscape, his approval rate sits 3 points above the New Haven Hearing Office average, 4 points below the state average, and 3 points below the national average. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Metric Judge Horan New Haven National
Approval rate 55% 52% 58%
Fully favorable 47%
Denials 45%

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 Horan's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Horan
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY21
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over his 5 years on the bench, Judge Horan has shown a varied yearly trend in his approval rates. After an initial period in 2017, his approval rate reached 63% in 2018 before shifting to 51% in 2019 and 58% in 2020. The most recent data from 2021 shows a rate of 38%. These fluctuations often mirror changes in the complexity of cases or the specific evidence presented in the courtroom.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Horan'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 New Haven hearing office

The New Haven Hearing Office serves you throughout Connecticut, managing a high volume of disability cases with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently reports an approval rate of 52%, which serves as a baseline for the region. You should be prepared for a formal process focused on medical documentation and vocational testimony. You can visit the New Haven 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 your assignment is essentially random. Within the New Haven Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 39% to 57%. Because each judge operates with their own judicial approach, you may find that the specific judge assigned to your case influences the flow of your hearing. You can review the office's general trends to understand the local environment.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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