Geraldine H. Page is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Roanoke office, with a lifetime approval rate of 45% over 10,808 decisions. This rate sits 13 percentage points below the national average of 58%. While these figures provide historical context, they are not predictions for your specific hearing. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not outcomes for individual cases. An attorney can help you prepare for the specific requirements of this judge's bench.
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
Judge Page has maintained a consistent record over her 5 years on the bench. Her lifetime approval rate of 45% is measured against a docket of 10,808 lifetime decisions. When compared to the latest reporting period, her rate remains distinct from the national average of 58% and the state average of 52%. Aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than predicting the outcome of 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 Page'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
Judge Page's approval rate has evolved over her tenure. After starting at 43% in 2016, the rate dipped to 36% in 2018 before trending upward to 53% in 2020. This pattern reflects shifts in her docket over time. These trends provide context for how your evidence may be evaluated.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Page'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 Roanoke hearing office
The Roanoke Hearing Office serves a broad population across Virginia, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a collective focus on processing complex medical and vocational evidence. You can expect a formal environment where thorough documentation is essential to a successful outcome. You can view the full ALJ roster on the Roanoke Hearing Office page.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases through a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment to a specific judge is essentially random. Within the Roanoke Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 45% to 67%. Because each judge brings a different perspective to the evidence, the judge you draw matters. You can find more information on the office's overall operations on the Roanoke 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.
