the issue before this court or issues is rather singular and straightforward the question st off is whether limiting an individual to simple routine repetitive tasks differs from the court previous ruling and thomas versus berryhill where they indicated simple routine instructions the nd issue that has to be addressed is the harmless error section where whether harmless erro apply in this particular case i'm going to go a little out of context and address the harmless error issue st in the unpublished decision in heller which had the same issues as thomas  actually perform the jobs in question and without that being result the court could not find harmless error in this particular case we have ms lawrence and as an academic exercise when you're dealing with law you sometimes forget the individual involved miss lawrence had a car accident in two thousand and twelve was diagnosed with a conversion syndrome where she basically it was a  form condition that the more activity the more things she did the worse her pain got at the same time she described periods of depression mood swings feelings of hopelessness decreased sleep decreased appetite she was noted with suicidal thoughts she was admitted to a mental institution she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder she was really it was recorded that she was not sleeping jobs because of the complexity involved if anything beyond the step one or excuse me reasoning level one which is very simple routine work there's a high probability that she's going to d compensate in the work environment so that needed to be addressed and it wasn't so the judge particular placed a hypothetical question before that resulted in the vocational expert finding that she could perform jobs that had reasoning level of to which involve some level of some complexity after all ms florence was noted as having hallucinations were level to do you see the word complexity her hand on that particular issue i mean it's hard to read into that says apply common sense understanding to carry out the two but an involved written or oral instructions deal with problems involving a few concrete variables in or from standardized situations that suggests to me a significant level of complexity the concrete variables is the issue a few concrete very correct and the question  then is what is a few and whether that's adequately addressed i mean are we talking a few could be a whole host or a multitude of different definitions of start far as what  tasks and such are are or are not complex that is really the point of the vocational testimony and really what we're talking about here is we're not talking about  situation where the the the judges in a vacuum here the vocational expert is there all as this issue is we're asking the folks here are the l g a to ask a point is trying to limit thomas by saying it only applied to instructions ok it didn't apply to tasks which is a issue of semantics because in essence what we have here is as if instructions are simple and routine then the tasks are likely to be simple and routine and i can just point to the fact that since thomas there have been a handful of decisions in the district courts where they have faced the issue of tasks and the district courts of all ruled the tasks in instructions are identical for the purposes of thomas and having the cases  commissioner is out of maryland in that case the court had to face a hypothetical which was simple in the deter limited to simple but no detailed work so what didn't even address either instructions or tasks referred to the generic work in each of those cases the court indicated that they that they could not differentiate between tasks and instructions and that the it i just has to be addressed the problem that i have with this and the problem that i have and basically made my career out of is that we give deference to the commissioner  the conflict has to be an apparent conflict that was the overman case i actually argued overman to the th circuit and that particular one and again what i'm saying is is the commissioner stablish is the policy then they interpret it under this rogue ruling s s r zero dash three p and then and then just arbitrarily will say that no there is no conflict here because we say there is no terms that are pointless which are simple routine why not just say assume the individuals limited to reasoning level two drops but instead of changing or instructing administrative law judge just change you're going to create nothing but confusion for district judges trying to implement what it is that what if it even in thomas the judge said it was simple routine instructions  me simple instructions and then followed by saying routine tasks you cannot differentiate those and that's the problem in this case and as a result of the fact that you cannot differentiate and considering the fact of all of the claimants ms lawrence's mental problems we reach a point where it cannot be found to be harmless because of the fact that we just do not have enough specificity in this record to determine whether or not she could actually perform those jobs and the vocational expert testimony in this case whether there's an issue with whether he needs to give more specific information in order to resolve the conflict is that what the issue is whether there's a conflict at all whether l j looks at the expressed language of the d o t and compares that to what the ve testified whether there's something there that would alert that a l j to the fact that there's a conflict here there's a mismatch that there is something they need further probably there absolutely is your honor and i was just about to say that in fact several circuit courts across the country have been presented with this same question whether there's a conflict between a restriction to the simple routine repetitive tasks of unskilled work on the one hand and reasoning level two jobs and not a single one has found a conflict and those circuits include the rd th th th th and th circuits and we cite all of those cases in our briefing that they think that a person with a restriction to simple routine repetitive tasks is capable of an even higher reasoning level than we see in this case and of course we believe that the same conclusion should be reached here as these other courts have ruled this court instructed in pearson that when a days identify a parent conflicts their job is to simply compare quote the express language of the d o t and the vocational experts testimony when the terms used in this case to describe the type of past miss lawrence can perform simple routine and repetitive are compared with the deities express language there is no conflict on the contrary each of them is in harmony with the d o t and regulatory language looking st with at simple simple tasks align precisely with the regulatory definition of unskilled work which describes that work as involving simple duties there is no dispute that each of the jobs identified in this case folder classifier browder are on skilled jobs in addition the limitation to simple tasks aligns with few concrete variables in or from standardized situations which is part of the reasoning level two definition and in her opening brief miss  russian yes it is this circuit has not been faced with this precise question before different yes different district courts have ruled differently the agency has prevailed in most of its cases before the district courts and the district of south carolina is a notable exception they tend to rule differently they waiving the waiver we still do believe that the question of the argument presented in the district court was very very different from the one presented here there was no hint that the terms were ambiguous there was nothing of that sort questioning the type of word choice that the l j used in his hypothetical question that was not before the district court the district court not rule on that so we still maintain that that argument was waived however we also argue that there is no each term doesn't conflict with the d o t is an additional burden that says r o four p doesn't require that pearson hasn't required that would be an additional thing in they would add to the ale days two days here with the and that may be a best practice but here what's at issue is whether there is a conflict or not and we still maintain that there is not a conflict and nothing in this court's prior decisions would dictate a different result pearson as i already mentioned is the court seminal case on this issue and as i've already mentioned it simply requires a comparison between the expressed language of the d o t and the east has to moni and here there is nothing in the expressed language of the d o t that would  precisely the same as it is now again that there's a simple routine repetitive work simple routine repetitive tasks i believe those terms are synonymous and it would be the same analysis i know opposing coun spoke about the distinction between tasks and instructions now the reason that distinction is important at all in this case is because of what the l g s have to do comparing the expressed language of the t to the vocational experts testimony and in thomas the limitations were too short and simple instructions not simple routine short and simple instructions and in that case you could take that short and simple instructions you can look at the reasoning level to definition which is for detailed but on involved instructions and you can say there seems to be a mismatch here that would alert the a l j that perhaps there's a conflict there apparent conflict that they need to inquire about her you don't have that same lining up of terminology you don't have that same thing to alert the l j to a conflict here you have simple routine repetitive tasks of unskilled work you have detailed but out involved instructions you have a few concrete variables in or from standardised situations there's nothing that would alert the a l j to a conflict in this case and even setting aside the difference between tasks and instructions even if that weren't part of it the th circuit looked at that issue in the more case and in that case there was a restriction to simple instructions they compared that against the detail instructions of reasoning level two and they noted that there's an important qualifier there it's not just detailed it's detailed but on involved and involved of course means not involved involved according to the dictionary definition the circuit found was complicated or intricate so what we're talking about here is instructions that are detailed but uncomplicated there's nothing about that that conflicts with simple just as the th circuit found so even if you were to say that tasks and instructions are close enough to be the same thing close enough that in a l j should know to look closely at that these facts do not produce a conflict and i think that's it's important to distinguish thomas where the restriction was too short and simple instructions from this case where there is no additional term short involved here short may very well conflict with detailed that's not part of this case guiding principles from pearson to what the ale j is tasked with doing here opposing counsel says it's not a big deal to ask you know a couple extra questions but that the big deal is is figuring out what those questions are if there's no conflict there or there alerted to what are they supposed to ask and just moving on here to harmless error which the court asked us to address  the supplemental briefing order it's our opinion that we don't need to get there but even if there was a conflict here and there for an error that error would be harmless harmless error review applies routinely in the context of disability appeals and there is no reason not to apply the doctrine here here there's no serious question that the result would be the same on remand even if the court were determined that there was a conflict is important to keep in mind in this case that there's no argument here that the residual functional capacity was incorrect or unsupported that's not at issue in this case therefore there's no dispute that miss lawrence could perform the simple routine repetitive tasks of unskilled work what we're talking about is an alleged conflict between jobs which the v testified fit that description and the language of the d o t and other words whether miss lawrence can perform these unskilled jobs as opposed to some other unskilled jobs it is and they ve did testify in this case you know not only in response to the hypothetical which described you know simple routine repetitive tasks of unskilled work but also you know in further testimony this vocational expert who had over twenty years of experience and apparently described these jobs as simple routine repetitive low stress jobs when she was further testifying in this case so see aready a firm that these these these jobs do fit that description and when you look at the jobs themselves these jobs are folder sorter or classified excuse me folder classifier and router those jobs are folding laundry sorting laundry into piles labeling packages so that they reach their correct destination these are simple routine repetitive jobs and again you know if there was a conflict here it would be a conflict that is so small that no other circuit court of appeals to address this very issue has been able to discern in addition the record shows that miss lawrence graduated from high school and attended some college her work background included a long tenure at met life insurance where she worked as a technical director which is a skilled job in which she managed over two hundred dollars people earned a six figure salary and met the reasoning demands of raising a level five there's no serious contention here that mrs lawrence cannot fold laundry sort laundry or label packages reasoning level themselves are based on the educational development of the particular person and missed the record shows that miss lawrence has that education but you don't  generally the hypothetical questions say something like you know can a person with this age this work experience in his educational background who's restricted to the following things perform you know any work are there any jobs you can identify so that's something the vocational expert did taken in mind and that's something that other circuit courts who have applied harmless error in similar circumstances have considered for instance or in sac in the rd circuit was a reasoning level three case and the court said even if there's a conflict harmless and part of their consideration was the fact that that particular claimant had a work background that suggested that they could perform the type of tasks required from the jobs issue in that case has not been addressed by this court yeah and i'm not aware that that has been a question that since squarely presented to the court i know it was not contained in the briefing in pierce and i don't believe it was addressed in thomas i don't even so and at the very nature of harmless error doctrine is that there is no point in sending something back if you already know what the result is going to be and we would contend that in this case we are to know what the result is going to be and and  any event we also contend that the court may not reach the question of harmless error because we do not believe that there is an error in this case further i don't have anything further unless you have any further questions thank you so much for your time and again it's our position that there is absolutely no conflict in this case circuit case doesn't say that reasoning level three does not apply to simple routine it was never raised in the district court and was never raised at hearing so therefore they didn't rule out they just said we're not going to want you trying to find out yes and i can tell you why are you because this court is the only one that got the definition of what is a conflict apparent conflict correct all the other circuits imply that the claimant and this particular case the l j to the claimant this is the only circuit that said that that shift is inappropriate all other circuits have said that the reason that it does not necessarily apply is it was not made clear and that puts the burden on them i in the th circuit have to question the vocational expert in depth and talk about conflicts in order to raise the conflict there and at that point in time then the that they can't read the d o t and understand exactly what the problems are pay they well know they're well versed in it this is what they spend their time doing and they are unlike federal judges who have to do this based on briefs they're in it every day so this is not something novel or new for them they should be able to see it and just the simple fact that judge diaz quotes the thing and asked me if that's in conflict the fact that we're arguing about or discussing whether that is or is not a conflict should be enough of a conflict considering that we're giving deference to the commissioner's own interpretation or regulation saying all conflicts have to be addressed by the ael j that alone should be enough to trigger and that's the problem we have in this particular case now as far as the harmless error it was addressed and keller and keller specifically said that because we're not clear from this record whether she could perform those drops specifically we have to remain in this case one of the things i noted is label or a yes it's a simple job but if you're having hallucinations and you're distracted by them are you going to have the labeling correct and if you don't have the labeling correct is the letter or package going to arrive at the right location and if you do that enough you're not going to maintain employment even if it is simple and routine and that's the problem we have so harmless error does not apply in this particular case and i'd ask the court to further clarify the thomas decision that the issue in this is the simple and routine now and i am not asking for a categorical ruling on this but as a general rule simple and routine should trigger that the l j asks the simple questions i do about twenty hearings a month in addition to briefing and and circuit court work and i can tell you that this is not something that would take an enormous amount of time but something which would help clarify everything for everyone involved and particularly claimants who many times are that this is their last chance of obtaining anything in a semblance of justice and i that i thank you if there is any questions i'll answer otherwise thank you for the time