is reasonable and provides a basis for relying on the VE or [vocational specialist] testimony rather than on the DOT information”). The ALJ did not identify what aspect of the VE’s experience warranted deviation from the DOT, and did not point to any evidence in the record other than the VE’s sparse testimony for the deviation. Therefore, the ALJ’s step four finding was erroneous. Although the ALJ’s step four determination constitutes error, it is harmless error in light of the ALJ’s alternative finding at step five. At step five, the ALJ concluded that, assuming Tommasetti could not perform past work, he could still perform other work in the national and local economies that existed in significant numbers. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1560(c); Robbins, 466 F.3d at 885 (<HOLDING>). The ALJ, relying on the VE’s testimony, found
holding that error that is inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination is harmless error 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 any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding exclusion was harmless error holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt