SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Thomas J. Sanzi

SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC Chicago Hearing Office · 11 years on the bench · 17,520 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Judge Sanzi has issued 17,303 lifetime decisions during his 10-year tenure. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate was 15%, which sits below the NHC Chicago office average of 51% and the national average of 58%. These figures provide a statistical baseline for understanding the judge's history. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Metric Judge Sanzi NHC Chicago National
Approval rate 26% 54% 58%
Fully favorable 10%
Denials 86%

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

Judge Sanzi
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

The approval trend for Judge Sanzi has fluctuated over his decade on the bench. After reaching a peak of 32% in 2023, the rate has seen a decline in the most recent reporting periods. This pattern reflects the judge's approach to evaluating evidence and medical documentation. While the latest 15% approval rate is lower than his lifetime average, it remains part of a long-term career trajectory. These shifts often correlate with changes in the types of cases presented or the quality of evidence you submit.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

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

The NHC Chicago Hearing Office serves you and other claimants across Illinois and the surrounding region. With a bench of 6 judges, this office manages a high volume of disability claims. The office-wide latest approval rate is 51%, reflecting the diverse caseload processed in this jurisdiction. You can visit the NHC Chicago Hearing Office page for the full roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning your assignment is essentially random. Within the NHC Chicago office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary significantly, ranging from 26% to 69%. Because of this variance, understanding the office environment is helpful for your preparation. The guidance for your hearing remains consistent regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Your odds change dramatically 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