Thomas G. Norman is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Houston-Bissonnet office. Over 1,206 lifetime decisions, your approval rate is 48%. This is 8% below the Houston-Bissonnet average and 10% below the national average. Because case assignment is random, an attorney can help you prepare for your hearing.
This page presents publicly available SSA Office of Hearings Operations disposition data, with no editorial rating or evaluation. ALJs are independent decisionmakers; aggregate statistics describe past patterns, not predictions of how any individual case will be decided. Information here is provided for hearing preparation, not as legal advice.
Approval rates
Comparing a judge's lifetime approval rate to current office and national benchmarks provides context for your upcoming hearing. Judge Norman has maintained a 48% approval rate, which contrasts with the 56% average at the Houston-Bissonnet Hearing Office and the 58% national average. These figures are derived from 1,206 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.
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 Norman's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.
Decision pattern
Over his tenure, Judge Norman has maintained a consistent approach to disability claims. With 1,206 lifetime decisions, his record reflects a steady pattern of adjudication. The data shows a stable trend during his time on the bench, with the latest reporting period remaining consistent with his overall career average. This stability helps you understand the consistency of his courtroom expectations.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Norman'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?
About the Houston-Bissonnet hearing office
The Houston-Bissonnet Hearing Office serves a large population of claimants in the Texas region. It is staffed by 6 administrative law judges who manage a high volume of cases to ensure timely hearings. The office currently maintains an approval rate of 56%, reflecting the local environment for disability claims. You can visit the Houston-Bissonnet Hearing Office page for more information on the office's operations.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning you cannot choose your judge. Within the Houston-Bissonnet Hearing Office, approval rates among the 6 judges vary significantly, ranging from 44% to 72%. This variance highlights why the specific judge assigned to your case is a factor in the hearing process. You can view the full roster of judges on the Houston-Bissonnet Hearing Office page.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
