20 C.F.R. § 404.1565(a). The 15-year time-frame is advisory in nature, and its purpose is to ensure that the ALJ does not use an outdated job description in his determination of whether the claimant can perform her past relevant work. See Barnes, 932 F.2d at 1358. We have held that a claimant need not testify as to the specific dates that she performed her past relevant work, as long as the time period during which she performed this work is reasonably ascertainable from the record. See id. at 1358-59. The regulations expressly provide that the ALJ may consult the DOT in order to obtain evidence regarding whether the claimant possesses the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(2); Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1230 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the ALJ may consider the
holding that while the information in the dot is not dispositive the alj may take administrative notice of reliable job information available from various governmental and other publications such as the dot holding probable cause exists based upon information received from a reliable eyewitness holding discrepancies should be resolved in favor of the dot particularly when the alj simply appears to have made a mistake by relying on the ve testimony over an inconsistent description in the dot holding alj may rely on ve contradicting dot but only insofar as the record contains persuasive evidence to support the deviation holding that such information is not material under securities law