SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Michelle Thompson

On record 3,814 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same period to ensure accuracy. While Michelle Thompson has a 74% lifetime approval rate, her latest-period performance shows an 87% approval rate, which sits 17 points above the Los Angeles Downtown office average of 70%. These figures are based on a substantial docket of 3,814 lifetime decisions. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 74%
Decisions on record 3,814
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Thompson Los Angeles Downtown National
Approval rate 87% 70% 58%
Fully favorable 73%
Denials 13%

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

Judge Thompson
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

Since 2016, Michelle Thompson has maintained a generally upward trend in her approval rates. While the record shows some fluctuation, the most recent data indicates an 87% approval rate, suggesting a shift toward higher allowance levels compared to your earlier years on the bench. This pattern reflects a continuation of her recent activity, which has seen approval rates climb from 65% in 2021 to 86% in 2026.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Thompson'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 Los Angeles Downtown hearing office

The Los Angeles Downtown hearing office serves you across California and is part of a busy regional network. The office bench consists of 10 judges on record, with an office-wide latest-period approval rate of 70%. You can expect a high volume of cases and should ensure your medical evidence is well-organized before your appearance. See the Los Angeles Downtown Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The Social Security Administration uses a workload-balancing algorithm to assign cases, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. There are 10 judges on record at this office since 2016, 4 of whom reported in the latest period, with lifetime approval rates ranging from 38% to 78%. For preparation purposes, the guidance is the same regardless of which judge you are assigned.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
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