John Pope is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC CHICAGO office with a lifetime approval rate of 40% over 2,922 decisions. This sits below the national average of 58%, though aggregate rates describe past decisions rather than individual hearing outcomes. Because case assignment is random, understanding your judge's history is a vital step in your preparation. An attorney can help you build a case tailored to the specific standards of this 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 Pope maintains a lifetime approval rate of 40% across 2,922 lifetime decisions. This is compared against the NHC Chicago office latest approval rate of 51% and the national average of 58%. These metrics provide a statistical baseline for understanding historical decision-making tendencies. 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 Pope'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 a 4-year tenure, your judge's approval rate moved from 33% in 2016 to 42% in 2018. This trend reflects a period of consistent decision-making patterns before the final reporting period. The data indicates that the judge's approach remained stable throughout the majority of their time on the bench. These patterns illustrate historical consistency in evaluating disability claims.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Pope'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.
About the NHC Chicago hearing office
The NHC Chicago Hearing Office serves you and other claimants across Illinois. With a bench of 6 judges, the office manages a high volume of SSDI cases with an office-wide latest approval rate of 51%. You should expect a formal process focused on medical evidence and vocational testimony. See the NHC Chicago Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to Judge Pope is random. Within the NHC Chicago office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 40% to 69%. While you cannot choose your judge, understanding the office-wide environment is a standard part of case preparation. You can find more information on the NHC Chicago 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.



