was incapable of performing light work. We note that there is some question in this circuit as to whether an ALJ is entitled to rely on the VE’s testimony even if it is inconsistent with the DOT. Compare Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 436-37 (7th Cir.2000) (stating that an ALJ “is entitled to rely on expert testimony that contradicts the description of sedentary work in the [DOT]”), with Young v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 957 F.2d 386, 391-92 (7th Cir.1992) (remand was necessary where VE’s testimony conflicted with job descriptions in the DOT); Tom v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1250, 1255-56 (7th Cir.1985) (same). But Farley did not make this argument in his brief to this court, and therefore we deem the argument waived. Ricci v. Arlington Heights, 116 F.3d 288, 291-92 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rodriguez, 888 F.2d 519, 524
holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived holding an argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding that an argument raised only in a footnote of a brief is waived holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived