evidence and that the ALJ’s failure to attribute the restriction to Dr. Hickman’s medical source statement was not error. As for Seever’s ability to handle work pressures, we note that during the disability hearing, the ALJ asked the VE to consider a moderately limited ability to interact with co-workers and to handle work pressures in determining what jobs Seever could perform in the national economy. Id. at 421-22. The VE listed picture framer, wood heel attacher, ticket seller, and call out operator—the same jobs that the ALJ listed in his decision as being available to Seever. Consequently, the ALJ’s failure to discuss in his written decision Dr. Hickman’s work-pressures opinion was at most harmless error. See Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 733-34 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Regarding Dr. Hickman’s opinion that Seever
recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases recognizing that harmless error analysis is applicable if no reasonable administrative factfinder following the correct analysis could have resolved the factual matter in any other way quotation omitted holding that harmless error analysis is inappropriate in a powers case holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis