of exertional impairment.” Foreman, 122 F.3d at 25. 4 . In this context, "significant” refers to whether the claimant’s nonexertional impairment or impairments preclude the claimant from engaging in the full range of activities listed in the Guidelines under the demands of day-to-day life. Lucy v. Chater, 113 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir.1997). In other words, an ALJ may rely on the Guidelines even though there is a nonexertional impairm Cir.1997) ("When expert testimony conflicts with the DOT, and DOT classifications are not rebutted, the DOT controls.”); Montgomery v. Chater, 69 F.3d 273, 276 (8th Cir.1995) (same); Smith v. Shalala, 46 F.3d 45, 47 (8th Cir.1995) (“when expert testimony conflicts with the DOT, the DOT controls”); Tom v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 1250, 1257 n. 12 (7th Cir. 1985)
holding alj may rely on ve contradicting dot but only insofar as the record contains persuasive evidence to support the deviation holding that when a constitutional right is vested in a party and there is a doubt as to whether that right has been waived the doubt should be resolved in the defendants favor holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed in the employees favor and any doubt in its construction is thus resolved in favor of the employee 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 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