Thomas J. Sanzi is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the NHC CHICAGO hearing office. With a lifetime approval rate of 26% over 17,303 lifetime decisions, your judge's rate sits below the national average of 58%. Because case assignment is random, understanding these patterns is helpful for your preparation. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing. An attorney can help you prepare for this judge's specific 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 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.
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.
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.
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
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.



