as to her credibility; and (4) erred in his rejection of the conclusions reached by the vocational expert when she was asked to compare Jerome’s limitations to a hypothetical situation posed to her. First, even if we were to hold that the ALJ committed legal error by finding that Jerome’s right-arm paresthesia and cervical stenosis were not severe, such error would be harmless. The ALJ found that Jerome’s HIV and spinal fracture were severe impairments, and then considered evidence of all her impairments at step four. The fact that the ALJ discussed both Jerome’s severe and non-severe impairments at step four renders the distinction between severe and non-severe impairments legally immaterial, and thus any alleged error was harmless. Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The ALJ’s failure to explicitly address
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 where the alj considered evidence of limitations posed by claimants bursitis at step four of the disability analysis any error in failing to consider bursitis severe at step two was harmless holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding in all cases that where the evidence of guilt was sufficient any error in the exclusion of lastminute evidence and testimony was harmless error