Thomas W. Springer is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Madison office. Over 3 years on the bench, he has maintained a 70% lifetime approval rate across 6,761 decisions. This sits 12 percentage points above the national average of 58%. While these statistics offer a view into past performance, they are not a prediction for your specific hearing. An attorney can help you prepare your case to meet the evidentiary standards required for approval.
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 Springer's 70% lifetime approval rate is a primary indicator of his decision-making history over his 3-year tenure. When compared to the 69% latest office approval rate and the 58% national average, his record shows a consistent approach to disability claims. With a docket of 6,761 decisions, these figures provide a stable view of his courtroom patterns. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings.
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 Springer'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 Springer shows a shift, moving from a 63% approval rate in 2016 to a stabilized 73% in 2017 and 2018. This trajectory reflects a consistent application of Social Security Administration guidelines across his 6,761 lifetime decisions. The judge's approach has remained stable throughout his recent years on the bench.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Springer'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 with Judge Springer? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.
Free Benefits ReviewAbout the Madison hearing office
The Madison (Wisconsin) Hearing Office serves a broad population across the region, managing a high volume of disability claims. With a bench of 6 judges, the office maintains a 69% latest approval rate. You can expect a formal hearing process focused on medical evidence and vocational testimony. You can visit the Madison (Wisconsin) Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.
Other judges at this hearing office
The Social Security Administration utilizes a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning your assignment to Judge Springer is essentially random. Within the Madison Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the 6 judges range from 49% to 78%. This variance highlights why understanding the local judicial environment is useful for your preparation.
Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer
SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.
