Case: 18-14651 Date Filed: 07/16/2019 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14651
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-00447-CPT
MARY JEANETTE MAXWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 16, 2019)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14651 Date Filed: 07/16/2019 Page: 2 of 6
Mary Jeanette Maxwell appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social
Security Commissioner’s denial of Maxwell’s claim for disability insurance
benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”). She argues that, after
she won on initial judicial review, the administrate law judge (“ALJ”) improperly
exceeded the district court’s instructions on remand. On further judicial review,
the district court disagreed with her argument and affirmed the Commissioner’s
decision. We now affirm the district court.
I
In 2008, Maxwell applied for DIB and SSI. Various administrative
proceedings ensued. In a 2012 decision, the ALJ concluded that Maxwell was not
disabled.
Maxwell sought judicial review. The district court found that the ALJ did
not “explicitly address” Maxwell’s and her physician’s testimony regarding her
limited ability to reach. Maxwell’s physician, for example, opined that she could
reach for only 10% of the workday. The district court found this evidence
“pertain[ed] directly” to Maxwell’s alleged disability and that the ALJ was
required to consider it. The ALJ may have, according to the district court,
conflated reaching limitations with manipulative (handling and fingering)
limitations. And with respect to the manipulative-limitations analysis, the district
court noted a separate problem. Although the ALJ found that Maxwell could
2
Case: 18-14651 Date Filed: 07/16/2019 Page: 3 of 6
“occasionally handle (gross manipulation) and finger (fine manipulation)
bilaterally” and that her alleged manipulative difficulties were “non-severe”
because her physician noted no relevant deficits, the ALJ also found that
“[m]anipulative restrictions are appropriate based on complaints of hand numbness
and occasional diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome.” The district court described
this discrepancy as “confusing.” In short, because the ALJ had not adequately
articulated its reasoning, the court could not “ascertain whether the ALJ’s
conclusions were rational and supported by substantial evidence.” The district
court reversed in relevant part and “remanded for further proceedings consistent
with [its] Order.”
In 2016, after a new hearing, the same ALJ issued a new order finding
Maxwell was not disabled. The ALJ concluded that Maxwell could “frequently
preform [sic] gross and fine manipulations and frequently reach in all directions.”
The ALJ discounted Maxwell’s physician’s opinion based on Maxwell’s lack of
treatment from 2012 through 2016; inconsistencies in the physician’s testimony;
poor recordkeeping; and conflicting testimony of another physician regarding
manipulation skills.
Maxwell again sought judicial review, arguing only that the ALJ had
exceeded the court’s mandate on remand. The district court disagreed and
affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. Maxwell appealed.
3
Case: 18-14651 Date Filed: 07/16/2019 Page: 4 of 6
II
A reviewing court examines de novo whether the ALJ has complied with a
remand order. See Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 885–86 (1989). “We review
application of the law of the case doctrine de novo.” Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v.
Inst. of London Underwriters, 430 F.3d 1326, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005).
“The doctrine of the law of the case ‘preclude[s] courts from revisiting
issues that were [already] decided.’” Cambridge Univ. Press v. Albert, 906 F.3d
1290, 1299 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403
F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005)). The doctrine encompasses issues that were
“decided explicitly or by necessary implication.” This That & the Other Gift &
Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb Cty., 439 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Schiavo, 403 F.3d at 1291)). The mandate rule is “nothing more than a specific
application of the ‘law of the case’ doctrine,” one that requires strict compliance
with the appellate mandate. Cambridge Univ. Press, 906 F.3d at 1299 (quoting
Transamerica Leasing, 430 F.3d at 1331). Under the mandate rule, the lower court
“must implement both the letter and the spirit of the mandate, taking into account
the appellate court’s opinion and the circumstances it embraces.” Id. (quoting
Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1119 (11th Cir. 1985)).
4
Case: 18-14651 Date Filed: 07/16/2019 Page: 5 of 6
III
Maxwell argues that the district court remanded only for the ALJ to
determine her capacity to reach, not her manipulation abilities. Thus, she
contends, the ALJ violated the law of the case doctrine or the mandate rule1 by
making new findings regarding manipulation.
We disagree. The district court’s order made no finding, expressly or
impliedly, regarding the ALJ’s manipulation determination—except that it was
“confusing” and may have been improperly conflated with the reaching
determination. Thus, there was no law of the case regarding manipulation. And as
Maxwell admits, there was also no law of the case regarding reaching. The district
court asked the ALJ for a do-over so that it could “ascertain whether the ALJ’s
conclusions were rational and supported by substantial evidence.” It envisioned a
new finding that was not confusing and that did not conflate separate lines of
analysis. The ALJ complied with the order’s “letter and spirit,” see Cambridge
Univ. Press, 906 F.3d at 1299, by engaging in a lengthy discussion that decoupled
the reasoning regarding manipulation and reaching. Having evaluated the evidence
differently, as he was instructed to do, the ALJ concluded Maxwell could
manipulate frequently rather than occasionally. Although Maxwell seems to
1
We have not decided in a published opinion whether the law of the case doctrine or the
mandate rule applies in the context of DIB and SSI appeals. We assume arguendo that the
doctrines do apply.
5
Case: 18-14651 Date Filed: 07/16/2019 Page: 6 of 6
believe the ALJ should have reached a different conclusion, she has not asked us to
examine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. Because we
reject her only argument on appeal, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
6