[PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12886

____________________

GEORGE WEIDNER, III, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-00673-JSS

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12886 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 09/22/2023 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12886

Before WILSON, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

George Weidner, III, appeals the district court’s affirmance 

of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) denial of his claim for 

disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) following the Appeals Council’s remand. He argues 

that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred on remand by reconsidering a prior finding of Weidner’s residual functional capacity (RFC) after the prior decision had been vacated, in violation of 

the law-of-the-case doctrine and the mandate rule. After careful 

review and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

I.

On April 26, 2016, Weidner applied for DIB and SSI. 

Weidner alleged an onset date of February 1, 2016, for the following disabilities: back pain, loss of vision in left eye, pins in right 

hand, and depression. Disability examiners denied Weidner’s application initially and on reconsideration. Weidner then requested 

and received a hearing before an ALJ.

Following the five-step process,1 the ALJ found Weidner not 

disabled in a July 31, 2018, decision (the 2018 Decision). Relevant 

1 The SSA regulations provide five steps that the ALJ must follow when evaluating a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). Relevant to this appeal, at step four, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s RFC, which

is the level of physical and mental work he can consistently perform despite 

his limitations. Id. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). At step five, the ALJ considers a 

claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience to determine whether 

USCA11 Case: 22-12886 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 09/22/2023 Page: 2 of 7
22-12886 Opinion of the Court 3

to this appeal, the ALJ found Weidner has an RFC to perform sedentary work2 but with additional limitations. Using that RFC and 

testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Weidner 

could not perform his past relevant work but could perform other 

jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Weidner then requested that the Appeals Council review 

the ALJ’s decision. The Appeals Council denied Weidner’s request 

for review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Weidner appealed to the district court. On appeal, the 

Commissioner moved—without opposition—to remand the case 

to the SSA so the ALJ could “obtain supplemental evidence from 

the vocational expert to clarify [Weidner’s] ability to perform other 

work in the national economy, take any further action to complete 

the administrative record, to offer [Weidner] the opportunity for a 

hearing, and to issue a new decision.” The district court granted 

the motion with its order simply stating “REMANDED to the 

[Commissioner] for further administrative consideration.” 

he can still do past relevant work or adjust to other work. Id. 

§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(iv)-(v). 

2 “Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. 

Although a sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain 

amount of walking and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. 

Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other 

sedentary criteria are met.” Id. §§ 404.1567(a), 416.967(a). 

USCA11 Case: 22-12886 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 09/22/2023 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12886

On remand from the district court, the Appeals Council vacated the 2018 Decision and remanded Weidner’s case back to an 

ALJ to obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to 

clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on Weidner’s occupational base. Because Weidner filed a subsequent claim for SSI on 

July 26, 2019, the Appeals Council found that the remanded claims 

and the new claim were duplicative. As a result, the Appeals Council consolidated Weidner’s 2016 claims for DIB and SSI with his 

subsequent July 2019 claim for SSI. The Appeals Council explained 

that the ALJ was to offer Weidner an opportunity for a hearing, 

take any action to complete the record, and issue a new decision. 

The ALJ held two hearings.

On remand, the ALJ found Weidner not disabled in a December 2, 2020, decision (the 2020 Decision). Relevant to this appeal, the ALJ found Weidner has an RFC to perform light work3

but with additional limitations. Using that RFC and testimony 

from a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Weidner could 

3 “Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent 

lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the 

weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good 

deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with 

some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of 

performing a full or wide range of light work, you must have the ability to do 

substantially all of these activities. If someone can do light work, we determine that he or she can also do sedentary work, unless there are additional 

limiting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or inability to sit for long periods 

of time.” Id. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b). 

USCA11 Case: 22-12886 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 09/22/2023 Page: 4 of 7
22-12886 Opinion of the Court 5

perform his past relevant work and perform other jobs existing in 

significant numbers in the national economy.

Weidner did not request the Appeals Council review the 

ALJ’s decision nor did the Appeals Council review the case on its 

own. After sixty days, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision 

of the Commissioner. Weidner appealed to the district court, 

which affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Weidner timely appealed.

II.

This Court reviews de novo the legal principles on which 

the Commissioner’s decision is based. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007). Whether an ALJ has 

obeyed the remand order of an appellate court is a question of law 

that is reviewed de novo. See Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 886 

(1989). Similarly, this court reviews the application of the law-ofthe-case doctrine de novo. Mega Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Pieniozek, 

585 F.3d 1399, 1405 (11th Cir. 2009). Finally, whether a court complied with a mandate is an issue of law that this Court reviews de 

novo. See Cambridge Univ. Press v. Albert, 906 F.3d 1290, 1298 (11th 

Cir. 2018).

III.

Weidner argues that the ALJ should have followed the lawof-the-case doctrine and not reassessed his RFC from the 2018 Decision. Weidner contends that the ALJ was required to follow the 

mandate and not relitigate any issue that the district court implicitly decided. 

USCA11 Case: 22-12886 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 09/22/2023 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12886

Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, an appellate court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law “are generally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on a later 

appeal.” This That & the Other Gift & Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb Cnty., 439 

F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). The mandate rule, 

which is “a specific application” of the law-of-the-case doctrine, 

binds a lower court to execute the mandate of the higher court 

without further examination or variance. Albert, 906 F.3d at 1299. 

A court “may not alter, amend, or examine the mandate, or give 

any further relief or review, but must enter an order in strict compliance with the mandate.” Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1119 

(11th Cir. 1985). 

For these doctrines to apply, the earlier decision must still be 

extant. But vacated decisions “are officially gone. They have no 

legal effect whatever. They are void.” See United States v. Sigma 

Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1278, 1280 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (addressing appellate opinions that had been vacated). 

Even assuming the law-of-the-case doctrine and mandate 

rule apply, the ALJ was free to reconsider Weidner’s RFC because 

the 2018 Decision was vacated. We have not decided whether 

these doctrines apply in social security cases, nor do we need to do 

so in Weidner’s case because the 2018 Decision was vacated. The 

district court order made no findings about how the ALJ erred in 

his determination on Weidner’s disability. Instead, the district 

court remanded the case on a motion from the Commissioner 

without making specific factual findings, including whether or not 

USCA11 Case: 22-12886 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 09/22/2023 Page: 6 of 7
22-12886 Opinion of the Court 7

the ALJ properly determined Weidner’s RFC. As a result, the Appeals Council had no factual findings in the remand order from 

which it could deviate. See Sullivan, 490 U.S. at 886 (“Deviation 

from the court’s remand order in the subsequent administrative 

proceedings is itself legal error, subject to reversal on further judicial review.”). Then the Appeals Council vacated the 2018 Decision. And as a result of the vacatur, that decision lost its binding 

effect. Sigma Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d at 1280. The sum result of these 

steps is that the ALJ was not required to abide by the prior RFC 

finding on remand.

Additionally, the Appeals Council explained that Weidner 

filed a new SSI claim in 2019, and it consolidated that claim with 

his initial claims, which stemmed from the same disabilities. The 

SSA regulations allow an ALJ to consider any issues relating to the 

claim, whether or not they were raised in earlier administrative 

proceedings. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.983(a), 416.1483(a). Considering 

the record before us, we conclude that the ALJ properly considered 

all the evidence from Weidner’s claims to determine that Weidner 

was not disabled. 

Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-12886 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 09/22/2023 Page: 7 of 7