SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Philip J. Simon

Last decided PasadenaSep 2021
Decisions 1,581since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe to ensure accuracy. The 68% approval rate for Philip J. Simon reflects all decisions on record since 2016, which we compare against the 35% to 70% range of other judges whose most recent office on record is Pasadena. This docket size provides a clear view of historical patterns. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 68%
Decisions on record 1,581

SSA has not published a latest-period approval, fully favorable or denial breakdown for Judge Simon. The most recent period with decisions on record is September 24, 2021. Those rows are left out rather than estimated.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Simon's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Simon
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY21
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

The approval rate for Philip J. Simon remained relatively steady between 2016 and 2020, consistently hovering near the 70% mark. The data shows a shift in the final recorded period of 2021, where the approval rate moved to 54% across 81 decisions. Because this judge's record spans 1,581 total decisions, these fluctuations are visible against a backdrop of long-term consistency. This pattern suggests that your case outcomes may vary depending on the specific evidence presented in your file.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Simon'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 Pasadena hearing office

Philip J. Simon's most recent office on record is the Pasadena hearing office, which serves the surrounding California region. This office is home to 11 judges whose most recent records are based there. You can generally expect a standard hearing process focused on medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can see the Pasadena Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is Pasadena

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is effectively random. There are 11 judges whose most recent office on record is Pasadena, with approval rates ranging from 35% to 70% on their since-2016 records. Five of these judges decided cases in the most recent SSA file. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
1×
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