Case Name: Kime-Ya I. TROUPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-04
Citations: 88 F. App'x 808
Docket Number: No. 03-10758
Parties: Kime-Ya I. TROUPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 808–809

Head Matter:
Kime-Ya I. TROUPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-10758.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 4, 2004.
Kime-Ya I. Troupe, Topeka, KS, pro se.
Jose Ricardo Hernandez, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kime-Ya I. Troupe appeals the district court's decision affirming the determina tion by the Commissioner of Social Security that she is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Troupe argues that the administrative law judge's determination that she was not disabled is based on errors of law and is not supported by the evidence.
Having reviewed the record and briefs on appeal, we conclude that the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standards in determining whether Troupe was disabled, and the administrative law judge's decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Watson v. Barnhart, 288 F.3d 212, 215 (5th Cir.2002). The administrative law judge adequately developed the record, and did not violate plaintiffs rights to a fair hearing. As plaintiff, after being informed of her rights, elected in writing to proceed at the hearing without a representative and never thereafter requested that her mother be allowed to serve as her representative, the administrative law judge did not err in excluding plaintiffs mother from the hearing except when she (the mother) testified.
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.