all of a claimant’s impairments at step two but finds that the claimant has satisfied step two’s severity requirement. See Blackmon v. Astrue, No. 04-1347, 719 F.Supp.2d 80, 89-91, 2010 WL 2607215, at *9 (D.D.C. June 30, 2010) (noting that “it appears that the [District of Columbia] Circuit has not yet addressed the question” of whether an error at step two of the evaluation process requires reversal). However, a member of this Court recently agreed with the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in their finding “that alleged errors at step two do not necessarily require reversal so long as the ALJ considered the omitted impairment(s) in evaluating the remaining steps in the sequential analysis.” Id; see also Maziarz v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Nejat v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 Fed.Appx.
holding that the evil we are trying to avoid in these cases is the routine use of wiretaps as an initial step in the investigation holding that a plaintiff who failed to file a step two form had not exhausted his administrative remedies and noting that the proper procedure after being denied step two forms is to complain to the general counsel holding that the commissioners failure to consider one impairment at step two could not constitute reversible error where the commission found at step two that the plaintiffs other conditions were severe and therefore proceeded to step three in the evaluation process holding that once one severe impairment is found the combined effect of all impairments must be considered even if other impairments would not be severe holding that the dispositive question in the first step of saucier  whether those facts establish a constitutional violation  is a pure question of law