In Rounds, the Ninth Circuit suggested that being limited to “simple, routine tasks” could be consistent with reasoning level two jobs. 807 F.3d at 1004, n.6 (citing unpublished decisions of panels of this Court and opinions from other circuits that have concluded that an RFC limitation to “simple” or “repetitive” tasks is consistent with level two reasoning: Moore v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 599, 604 (8th Cir. 2010); Abrew v. Astrue, 303 Fed.Appx. 567, 569 (9th Cir. 2008; Lara v. Astrue, 305 Fed.Appx. 324, 326 (9th Cir. 2008); Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1176 (10th Cir. 2005); Money v. Barnhart, 91 Fed.Appx. 210, 215 (3rd Cir. 2004)). In Hernandez v. Berryhill, 707 F. App'x. 456, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2017) the court explained that there is no apparent conflict between an RFC determination limiting a claimant to “simple, repetitive tasks” and level two occupations.

An error in identifying jobs that can be performed will be deemed harmless if the ALJ identified another job or jobs which the plaintiff can perform and for which there are significant numbers in the national economy. See Gray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec . Admin., 365 Fed.Appx. 60, 63 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming ALJ's decision where claimant could perform only one of three jobs identified by ALJ but significant number of jobs in national economy for that one job supported ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled); see also Lara v. Astrue, 305 Fed.Appx. 324, 326 (9th Cir. 2008) ("To the extent the [vocational expert] was overly broad and included jobs that [the claimant] could both perform and not perform, any error is harmless so long as the jobs that could be done are enough to support the ALJ's decision."). 3.

Someone limited to simple and repetitive tasks is not capable of performing Level 3 reasoning work. Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 2015); Lara v. Astrue, 305 F. App'x 324, 326 (9th Cir. 2008) ("[S]omeone able to perform simple, repetitive tasks is capable of . . . Level 2 jobs"); and Meissl v. Barnhart, 403 F. Supp. 2d 981, 983-85 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (holding Level 2 jobs are consistent with limitation to "simple, repetitive" tasks). Thus, the ALJ erred in concluding that Plaintiff could perform the jobs of mail clerk and cashier II.

Any error by the ALJ in relying on the usher occupation at step five would have been harmless. See Buckins v. Berryhill, 706 F. App'x 380, 381 (9th Cir. 2017) (an ALJ's error in relying on an unsuitable occupation would be harmless where the ALJ identifies alternative occupations yielding a significant number of jobs); Lara v. Astrue, 305 F. App'x 324, 326 (9th Cir. 2008) (same). Thus, this argument does not warrant reversal.

The Ninth Circuit has also suggested in an unpublished memorandum decision that jobs requiring more than level 1 or level 2 reasoning skills, as defined by the DOT, are arguably inconsistent with a limitation for simple, repetitive work. See Lara v. Astrue, 305 F.App'x 324, 325 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court concluded that the VE's testimony that Plaintiff, who is limited to simple, one- to two-step job instructions, could perform the "world of unskilled work" which included jobs through GED reasoning skill level 3 appeared to be inconsistent with level 3 reasoning skills as defined by the DOT. (Doc. 23, 17:25-19:2.)

The Seventh and Ninth Circuits have similarly held. See Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 478 (7th Cir. 2009); Lara v. Astrue, 305 F. App'x 324, 326 (9th Cir. 2008). Although some courts have taken the opposite position, finding that a limitation to simple instructions or tasks conflicts with an indication in the DOT that a job has a GED reasoning level of 2, these cases "are increasingly in the minority."

Unpublished decisions of panels of this Court and opinions from some of our sister circuits have concluded that an RFC limitation to “simple” or “repetitive” tasks is consistent with Level Two reasoning. See Moore v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 599, 604 (8th Cir.2010); Abrew v. Astrue, 303 Fed.Appx. 567, 569 (9th Cir.2008) (unpublished); Lara v. Astrue, 305 Fed.Appx. 324, 326 (9th Cir.2008) (unpublished); Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1176 (10th Cir.2005); Money v. Barnhart, 91 Fed.Appx. 210, 215 (3d Cir.2004) (unpublished). These decisions are inapposite because they did not consider a specific limitation to “one to two step tasks.”

See Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The step two and step five determinations require different levels of severity of limitations such that the satisfaction of the requirements at step two does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the claimant has satisfied the requirements at step five.”); see also Lara v. Astrue, 305 Fed.Appx. 324, 326 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting the plaintiff's argument that “the ALJ's finding of a severe impairment at step two . . . necessarily requires inclusion of that impairment in the hypothetical question posed to the VE at step five” because “[a] step-two determination is not dispositive at step five”). The ALJ committed no error by finding Plaintiff's migraines a “severe impairment” at step two and formulating an RFC that did not include restrictions that address the full range of Plaintiff's alleged migraine symptoms.

And, even if it is not, the VE's opined occupations all have a reasoning level of two, which is compatible with the RFC's limitation to simple instructions. Barbee v. Berryhill, No. 16-1779, 2017 WL 3034531, at *16 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2017) (collecting cases, e.g., Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 846-47 (9th Cir. 2015); Lara v. Astrue, 305 Fed.Appx. 324, 326 (9th Cir. 2008); Abrew v. Astrue, 303 Fed.Appx. 567, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)); Coleman v. Astrue, No. 10-5641, 2011 WL 781930, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2011) (collecting more cases). Thus, any theoretical error is harmless.

Courts in this circuit have consistently found that Level 2 reasoning jobs do not conflict with a restriction to simple work. See Lara v. Astrue, 305 Fed.Appx. 324, 326 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Reasoning Level 1 jobs are elementary, exemplified by such tasks as counting cows coming off a truck, and someone able to perform simple, repetitive tasks is capable of doing work requiring more rigor and sophistication-in other words, Reasoning Level 2 jobs.”); Grigsby v. Astrue, No. EDCV 08-1413 AJW, 2010 WL 309013, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan.