Susan J. Soddy is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Houston-Bissonnet hearing office. Her lifetime approval rate is 10% across 1,679 lifetime decisions, which sits below the national average of 58%. While these figures provide a statistical baseline, they are not a prediction for your specific hearing. Because case assignment is random, an attorney can help you prepare a robust case regardless of the judge assigned.
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 Soddy maintains a lifetime approval rate of 10% based on 1,679 lifetime decisions. Compared to the latest reporting period, this rate sits 46 percentage points below the Houston-Bissonnet office average of 56% and 48 points below the national average of 58%. These figures provide a view of past judicial activity, though they do not predict 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 Soddy'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
Across 1 year on the bench and 1,679 lifetime decisions, the approval rate for Judge Soddy has remained consistent. The data shows a steady pattern of decision-making that reflects the judge's approach to evaluating medical and vocational evidence. Because the rate has held steady throughout this tenure, these statistics provide a baseline for understanding the historical approach to disability claims at this office.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Soddy'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 Houston-Bissonnet hearing office
The Houston-Bissonnet Hearing Office serves a large population of applicants, managing a high volume of SSDI cases with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently reports an approval rate of 56%, which aligns with national trends. You can expect a formal administrative process focused on the specific medical evidence provided in your file. You can visit the Houston-Bissonnet Hearing Office page for more information.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration assigns cases to judges using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. At the Houston-Bissonnet office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges vary significantly, ranging from 10% to 72%. You can view the full roster of judges at the Houston-Bissonnet 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.
