Helen F. Strong is an SSA Administrative Law Judge at the Houston-Bissonnet Hearing Office with a lifetime approval rate of 72% over 16,609 decisions. This is well above the national average of 58%. While these figures provide context, they are not a guarantee of your specific outcome. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for individual hearings. 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 Helen F. Strong maintains a lifetime approval rate of 72% based on 16,609 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, this rate reached 86%, which is 16 percentage points higher than the current Houston-Bissonnet office average and 14 points above the national average. This data reflects a significant volume of cases handled over a 10-year tenure. 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 Strong'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
Over her 10 years on the bench, Judge Helen F. Strong has seen her approval rate trend upward. Starting at 60% in 2016, the rate has climbed steadily, reaching 86% in the most recent reporting period. This pattern suggests a consistent approach to evaluating evidence over time. The recent figures represent a continuation of this upward trajectory, which may reflect changes in the types of cases heard or the quality of evidence presented.
Preparing for an SSDI hearing
The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Strong'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 you throughout the Houston region of Texas. This office manages a high volume of cases with a bench of 6 judges who oversee thousands of hearings annually. The office currently reports an approval rate of 56%, which serves as a baseline for the region.
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 Houston-Bissonnet office, lifetime approval rates among the bench range from 44% to 72%. Because each judge has a different history and approach, the specific judge you draw can be a factor in your case.
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.
