SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Nathan Mellman

Position Administrative Law Judge
On record SSA records since 2016
Decisions 3,540 lifetime

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Comparing Nathan Mellman's record to the Chicago hearing office requires looking at both lifetime and recent data. While his lifetime approval rate sits at 41%, the office-wide lifetime range for all judges on record spans from 41% to 82%. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate was 39%, which is 15 percentage points lower than the office average of 54%. These figures reflect historical trends rather than a prediction for your specific hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 41%
Decisions on record 3,540
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Mellman Chicago National
Approval rate 39% 54% 58%
Fully favorable 29%
Denials 61%

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

Judge Mellman
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

Since 2016, Nathan Mellman has maintained a consistent docket with 3,540 lifetime decisions. His yearly approval rates have fluctuated, showing a peak in 2024 before settling toward his long-term average in 2026. This trend suggests that while individual years vary, his overall approach remains grounded in the evidence presented in each case.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Mellman'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 Chicago hearing office

The Chicago hearing office serves claimants throughout the region, managing a high volume of disability cases. With 16 judges on record since 2016, this office operates under a latest-period approval rate of 54%. You can expect a review process where the quality of your medical evidence is the primary factor in a favorable decision.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to Nathan Mellman is essentially random. There are 16 judges on record at this office since 2016, 10 of whom reported in the latest period. With an office-wide lifetime approval range of 41% to 82%, you may encounter a variety of decision patterns across the bench.

Approval rates change 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