See Leach v. Saul, No. 18-23950-CIV, 2019 WL 3858824, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2019) (finding that VE's “testimony constitute[d] substantial evidence that the plaintiff's office manager position was not a composite job“); Washington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that “the ALJ has an affirmative obligation to identify any ‘apparent' conflict [with the DOT] and to resolve it”); Bryant v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 451 F. App'x, 838, 838-39 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'” (quoting Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)). Here, the VE specifically testified that Plaintiff's past relevant work at Burger King was not a composite job.