Suanne S StraussOdar Office, Administrative Law Judge
For the 2010 *fiscal year, Judge Suanne S Strauss has disposed 555 cases at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) in ELKINS PARK, PENNSYLVANIA. Out of those 555 dispostions, 97 were dismissed, 325 were approved and 133 were denied. This means that the percentage of depositions that Judge Suanne S Strauss has approved in ELKINS PARK for the 2010 fiscal year is 10%. The information below for Judge Suanne S Strauss was last updated on 12/01/2022.
AVERAGE STATISTICS
| Office | *Fiscal Year | Total Depositions | Total Decisions | Total Denials | Total Awards | Cases Dismissed | Cases Approved | Cases Denied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELKINS PARK | 2010 | 555 | 458 | 133 | 325 | 17% | 59% | 24% |
| ELKINS PARK | 2012 | 588 | 420 | 164 | 256 | 29% | 44% | 28% |
| ELKINS PARK | 2015 | 472 | 359 | 128 | 231 | 24% | 49% | 27% |
| ELKINS PARK | 2014 | 568 | 419 | 155 | 264 | 26% | 46% | 27% |
| ELKINS PARK | 2013 | 585 | 432 | 160 | 272 | 26% | 46% | 27% |
| ELKINS PARK | 2011 | 593 | 469 | 183 | 286 | 21% | 48% | 31% |
| ELKINS PARK | 2016 | 489 | 359 | 111 | 248 | 27% | 51% | 23% |
| ELKINS PARK | 2017 | 521 | 390 | 130 | 260 | 25% | 50% | 25% |
| ELKINS PARK | 2018 | 109 | 98 | 37 | 61 | 10% | 56% | 34% |
AVERAGE TIME
| Dismissed | Approved | Denied | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suanne S Strauss | No Stats for FY2018 | ||
| All ALJs in ELKINS PARK | 20% | 45% | 35% |
| All ALJs in PENNSYLVANIA | 19% | 42% | 40% |
| All ALJs in the Nation | 18% | 45% | 38% |
5 Comments
judge S Strauss yelled at me, claiming I did not list the meds I mentioned. when I told her I told her the name brand bc I could not pronounce the generic she scoffed at me. she actually threw out my doctors report claiming my doctor was a friend of mine!!!!
the stenographer looked in horror at my lawyer, who sat with his head down! I was shocked!!!!!
first off I was told my my lawyer Berg , to put grease in my hair and speak spanish?!
I was told by my new lawyer that “judge” Strauss she was fired for mental health reasons?!
Judge Strauss presided over my disability hearing on August 19, 2011 and ruled against me, despite 4 separate doctors attesting that I was and am disabled — two of which were appointed by SSDI — as well as her own court-appointed work-expert. All agreed I could not work. But one doctor, who was ignorant of my condition, submitted a highly biased report and, according to her decision, was the only doctor she believed. At least, she cited his report six times in her statement, never mentioning any others.
What she did not know was that, prior to the hearing, I had asked my lawyer to submit a statement by me as evidence. I knew this doctor was prejudiced against me because I did not have health insurance. (I had read the report, myself.) As a result, his report was littered with inaccuracies and out-right lies. Several times he quoted me as saying things that were said TO me, but to which I had not even considered. Yet he presented them as my ideas.
But, what I only found out AFTER the hearing was that my lawyer never submitted my statement. When I questioned him, his reason was that it was, “too long.” Excuse me but, I understood that in any court hearing, evidence no matter the length must be considered.
Yet, when I first sent it to him and asked if it was all right to submit it, he said it was, “fine.” This implied to me that he would submit it. So I walked into that hearing thinking she had read my statement.
This explains her remarks, many of which were, simply put, rude. But in all her comments, never once did she interview me about the doctor in question, not even to verify any of his comments.
After my hearing, it took some time for me to understand the whole situation. Remember, I am disabled.
In a ‘nutshell’ the doctor is God and no one questions them– even when they are openly biased against someone. Not the judge, not other doctors and not even my own lawyer. My hearing was a farce. While Judge Strauss was permitted to base 90% of her decision on one report from one, ignorant doctor (and, really, with the internet available to everyone, this in itself, shows gross negligence), she did so with prejudice since the examination from which this report resulted was never discussed in the hearing. Never once was I allowed to comment on it, so that my comments were never allowed into the record.
Since the entire purpose of a hearing is to reveal all information relevant to a case and this was not even attempted, nor achieved, the decision and the hearing were based primarily on prejudice rather than evidence.
Since that time, I have suffered greatly, both medically and financially, as a direct result of this judgement.
I have appeared before this ALJ many times. She knows the claimant’s file and lets you present your case. I find her to be very reasonable and smart.
UNQUALIFIED > WHAT GOVENOR APPOINTED THIS IDIOT WITH HER BIG FAT SALARY SHE SHOULD NEVER BE RE APPOINTED.