Courts have held that an ALJ's RFC analysis and findings which preclude finding that the claimant's impairments meet or equal a listing rendering failure to consider a listed impairment at step three harmless. See FischerRoss v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 735 (10th Cir. 2005) (finding harmless error where the ALJ's RFC findings “reject any notion that claimant suffers from persistent disorganization of motor functions in two extremities” required for presumptive disability at step three); Bland v. Astrue, No. 09-1254-SAC, 2010 WL 3168204, at *5 (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2010), affd, 432 Fed.Appx. 719 (10th Cir. 2011) (finding harmless error where the ALJ discussed the claimant's psychological and IQ assessments in the RFC despite not considering the proper listing at step three). The same is true here.