Surita v. Barnhart ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50436
Summary Calendar
YOLUNDA SURITA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-01-CV-509-SC)
--------------------
December 12, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Yolunda Surita appeals the district
court’s denial of her petition seeking review of the Commissioner
of Social Security’s decision denying supplemental security income
and disability insurance benefits. She contends that the
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") failed to advise her of her right
to representation, erred in assessing her psychological
impairments, and failed to pose a correct hypothetical question to
the vocational expert.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
The record establishes that Surita waived her right to
representation at the hearing and that any lack of representation
did not prejudice her by preventing her from fully developing
her claims or by causing confusion in the record. See Ripley
v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 557 (5th Cir. 1995). Surita’s argument
that the ALJ did not fully consider the opinion of her treating
physician is without merit; the physician’s reports did not support
a determination that Surita was disabled. Substantial evidence
supports the ALJ's determination that Surita was not disabled by
her psychological impairments. See Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558,
564-65 (5th Cir. 1995). It was unnecessary for the ALJ to pose a
hypothetical to the vocational expert because the ALJ relied on
§ 201.24 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4 (the
medical-vocational guidelines or "grid") in determining that Surita
was not disabled and Surita has not challenged the ALJ’s use of the
grid. See Fraga v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1296, 1304-05 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
2