SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Evan Nordby

Last decided WichitaSep 2018
Decisions 146since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at consistent data windows. The 64% approval rate for Evan Nordby reflects all decisions on record since October 2016, which can be measured against the 37% to 67% range seen among other judges whose most recent office on record is Wichita. This range provides a clearer picture of the local bench than comparing against national averages. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 64%
Decisions on record 146

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Nordby. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 28, 2018. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

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

Judge Nordby
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY17FY18
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

The approval rate for Evan Nordby showed variation across the data window starting in October 2016. With 146 total decisions on record, your annual approval rate moved from 72% in 2017 to 59% in 2018. This shift indicates a decline in the approval frequency over the observed period. Such patterns often reflect changes in the specific mix of cases or the quality of evidence presented, rather than a change in judicial philosophy.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Nordby'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 Wichita hearing office

Evan Nordby's most recent office on record is the Wichita hearing office, with decisions there through September 2018. This office serves you and other claimants across the region and maintains a bench of 8 judges whose most recent records are tied to this location. You can expect a standard hearing process focused on the medical and vocational evidence of your disability.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Wichita

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 8 judges whose most recent office on record is Wichita, and their approval rates on record since 2016 range from 37% to 67%. While you cannot choose your judge, understanding the range of outcomes at your hearing office can help you prepare. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

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