SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Ronald J. Thomas

Last decided New HavenJul 2026
Decisions 3,264since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same timeframe. While your judge's 39% approval rate covers the entire period since 2016, recent performance is measured against the latest reporting period. In the most recent period, your judge's approval rate was 34%, compared to 47% for the office, 54% for the state, and 58% nationally. These figures are based on 3,264 decisions on record. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

All decisions on record SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 39%
Decisions on record 3,264
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Thomas New Haven National
Approval rate 34% 47% 58%
Fully favorable 30% — —
Denials 66% — —

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 Thomas's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Thomas
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
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 Ronald J. Thomas has fluctuated since 2016. After reaching 46% in 2018, the annual approval rate shifted, reaching 34% in the most recent period. This recent trend reflects a continuation of the patterns seen in preceding years. Your case outcome remains sensitive to the specific evidence you present in your hearing.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Thomas'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 New Haven hearing office

The most recent office on record for Ronald J. Thomas is the New Haven Hearing Office, which serves claimants across Connecticut. This office maintains a bench of 8 judges, and the office-wide latest-period approval rate was 47%. You can expect a formal hearing process where your evidence quality is the primary driver of the outcome.

Other judges whose most recent office on record is New Haven

The Social Security Administration assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 8 judges whose most recent office on record is this one, and 5 of them decided cases here in the latest file from July 2026. Approval rates for this bench range from 36% to 58% on their records since 2016. 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