SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Jeffrey M. Jordan

Last decided NorfolkJul 2026
Decisions 4,090since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing performance requires looking at consistent data windows. His 54% approval rate on record since 2016 sits within the 48% to 60% range observed among the 12 judges whose most recent office on record is the Norfolk hearing office. In the most recent reporting period, his 52% approval rate compares to a 55% rate for the office, a 49% rate for the state, and a 58% national average. These figures reflect historical trends rather than individual case outcomes.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 54%
Decisions on record 4,090
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Jordan Norfolk National
Approval rate 52% 55% 58%
Fully favorable 34% — —
Denials 48% — —

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

Judge Jordan
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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

Judge Jordan has issued 4,090 decisions since 2016. After a peak of 59% in 2017, the approval rate saw a decline to 44% in 2021 before stabilizing near 50% to 52% in recent years. The latest period rate of 52% reflects a continuation of this steady pattern. These shifts often correlate with changes in the complexity of cases or the specific medical evidence presented.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Jordan'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 Norfolk hearing office

The Norfolk hearing office serves claimants throughout the region and maintains a bench of 12 judges whose most recent office on record is this location. The office recorded a 55% approval rate during the latest reporting period. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on the medical and vocational evidence supporting your disability claim.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Norfolk

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 12 judges whose most recent office on record is the Norfolk hearing office. Approval rates across this bench range from 48% to 60% on their records since 2016. Your preparation remains consistent regardless of which judge is assigned to your case.

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