SSDI Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Richard Thrasher

SSDI Administrative Law Judge at the Nhc Chicago Hearing Office · 10 years on the bench · 8,275 lifetime decisions

Hearing scheduled with Judge Thrasher?

Free Benefits Review →
Free
2 minutes
Confidential

Approval rates

Judge Thrasher maintains a lifetime approval rate of 62% based on 8,275 lifetime decisions. In the most recent reporting period, his approval rate reached 93%, which stands 11 points above the NHC Chicago office average and 4 points above the national average. These figures provide a snapshot of his decision-making history over his 10-year tenure.

Metric Judge Thrasher Nhc Chicago National
Approval rate 62% 51% 58%
Fully favorable 93%
Denials 7%

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

Judge Thrasher
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY25
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total dispositions excluding dismissals.

Decision pattern

Over his 10 years on the bench, Judge Thrasher has seen his approval rates shift. While his early years showed rates between 58% and 61%, the trend has moved upward since 2022, reaching 83% in 2024. This recent performance represents a departure from his earlier, more moderate decision patterns. Whether this reflects changes in the types of cases assigned or evolving evidentiary standards, the current data shows a sustained period of higher approval outcomes.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Thrasher'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 Thrasher? Free, confidential — see if you qualify for SSDI.

Free Benefits Review
Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Nhc Chicago hearing office

The NHC Chicago Hearing Office serves you and other claimants across Illinois and the surrounding region. It is one of the larger offices in the area, managing a high volume of cases with a bench of 6 judges. The office currently reports an approval rate of 51%, which serves as a baseline for the region. You can visit the NHC Chicago 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 you cannot choose your judge. At the NHC Chicago Hearing Office, lifetime approval rates among the bench vary, ranging from 41% to 69%. This variance highlights why it is important to focus on the strength of your own medical evidence regardless of who is assigned to your hearing.

Your odds change dramatically with a lawyer

SSDI hearing approval rates — represented vs. on your own

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants
Free Benefits Review

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