Linda Trimble v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10210
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
LINDA TRIMBLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-01672-ACA
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 1 of 16

-- 1 of 16 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10210
Before WILSON, BRANCH , and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case involves the Social Security Administration’s
(“SSA”) denial of Linda Trimble’s claim for supplemental security
income (“SSI”) disability benefits for the time period of September
15, 2015, to February 2, 2017. The Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) for the SSA initially determined that Trimble was disabled,
with a disability onset date of February 2, 2017, rather than
September 15, 2015, as Trimble alleged in her application for
benefits. On appeal, the district court remanded the case to the ALJ
because the district court determined that there was insufficient
evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination of Trimble’s
disability onset date. On remand, after hearing additional medical
testimony, the ALJ again found that February 2, 2017, was the
appropriate onset date. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s
decision. Trimble now argues that the ALJ violated the district
court’s mandate and the law of the case doctrine by determining
that her disability onset date was February 2, 2017. She also argues
that the ALJ’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
After review, we affirm.
I . Background
In February 2015, Trimble applied for SSI disability benefits
with an alleged onset date of July 1, 2014. Although it is unclear
from the record exactly what happened with that application, it
appears that while it was pending, Trimble filed another
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 2 of 16

-- 2 of 16 --

23-10210 Opinion of the Court 3
application for SSI benefits in September 2015, alleging a disability
onset date of September 15, 2015—this application is the focus of
this appeal. In support of her application, Trimble submitted a
disability report in which she indicated that “lower back pain” and
“nerve damage from [her] back to [her] feet” limited her ability to
work. She also submitted a function report in which she stated that
her condition made it difficult to sleep well at night and to get out
of bed. The report also stated that she needed help dressing and
bathing herself; that she could not stand too long because of
swelling in her feet; and that her condition affected her ability to
lift, squat, bend, stand, reach, walk, sit, kneel, and climb stairs. The
SSA denied her claims, so she requested a hearing before an ALJ.
In February 2017, the ALJ conducted a hearing on Trimble’s
claim. Trimble testified that she was in a lot of pain, was forced to
use a walker to ambulate, and she could barely sit or stand without
pain.
The medical evidence before the ALJ was as follows. In
2008, Trimble saw Dr. Norman Rahn to report a lower back injury.
Dr. Rahn performed an x-ray and noted that Trimble’s lumbar
spine appeared normal. In 2014, Dr. James White, a neurosurgeon,
diagnosed Trimble with a herniated lumbar 4 disc with stenosis and
conducted surgery. After the surgery, Trimble reported to Dr.
White that she was having soreness in her back and leg, and a
burning pain in her foot.
On April 8, 2015, Trimble visited Dr. Zakir Khan for her
social security disability determination exam. Dr. Khan
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 3 of 16

-- 3 of 16 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10210
determined that Trimble had an ability to perform fine motor skills
and to stand, carry, handle objects, hear, speak, and travel, but that
her ability to sit, walk or lift for an extended period of time may be
impaired. One day later, Dr. Marcus Whitman evaluated Trimble
and determined that Trimble was able to perform light work and
was not disabled.1
In September 2015, Trimble began seeing a different
Neurosurgeon, Dr. Terry Andrade. She elected to have another
back surgery, which was conducted in October 2015. She
continued to report pain after the surgery. In July and August 2016,
Trimble visited Dr. Jeremy Barlow, who administered epidural
injections. She then visited Dr. Luc Frenette who administered
additional epidurals. The epidurals only provided temporary relief.
In January 2017, Dr. Frenette noted that Trimble had some
tenderness, showed visible signs of pain, and that she required
some assistance to rise from a seated position. However, Dr.
Frenette also noted that Trimble had normal station and gait,
normal movement in all extremities, and normal flexion and
extension.
On February 2, 2017, Trimble visited Dr. Jarrod Warren for
a medical evaluation. Dr. Warren noted that “[g]iven [Trimble’s]
history of gradual worsening symptoms, as well as lack of response
to surgical interventions, it is anticipated that her back pain will
continue to worsen.” Dr. Warren also completed a physical
1 Dr. Khan’s and Dr. Whitman’s evaluations were conducted in connection
with Trimble’s February 2015 application for benefits.
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 4 of 16

-- 4 of 16 --

23-10210 Opinion of the Court 5
capacities evaluation in which he noted that Trimble could sit
upright in a standard chair for 15-30 minutes; could stand for 15
minutes; would be lying down or sleeping for 6-7 hours of an 8-
hour day; would be off-task for 75% of an 8-hour day; and would
be likely to miss 30 days in a 30 day period due to her physical
symptoms. He also noted that these limitations dated back to
September 11, 2015.
Additionally, at the hearing before the ALJ, a vocational
expert, Dr. Jewell Euto, testified as to Trimble’s work history,
which included past work as a packager (a medium-exertion
unskilled job); a cleaner (a light-exertion unskilled job); and a
poultry hanger (a medium-exertion unskilled job). The ALJ then
asked Dr. Euto about the work limitations of two hypothetical
individuals. The first hypothetical individual could perform light
exertion, but not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, could
occasionally climb ramps or stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch,
or crawl, and who would need the use of a walker while
ambulating. The second hypothetical individual had no limitation
on lifting and carrying but could only stand up to 15 minutes at a
time, sit between 15 to 30 minutes at a time, perform work activity
for 15 to 30 minutes at a time, and would need to lie down or be
seated between 6 to 7 hours in an 8-hour day. Dr. Euto stated that
the first individual would only be able to perform sedentary
work—not any of the three jobs identified in Trimble’s work
experience. As to the second individual, Dr. Euto stated that no
work was available.
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 5 of 16

-- 5 of 16 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-10210
In January 2018, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision
to Trimble, granting disability benefits with an onset date of
February 2, 2017. The ALJ applied the five step-sequential
approach as required by 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). See 20 C.F.R. §
416.920(a)(4). At step one, the ALJ determined that Trimble had
not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 15,
2015. At step two, the ALJ concluded that Trimble had two severe
impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease and peripheral
neuropathy. At step three, the ALJ concluded that Trimble’s
impairments did not meet or medically equal the severity of one of
the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525,
404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926. At step four, the ALJ
concluded that, prior to February 2, 2017, Trimble had the ability
to perform light work as defined by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b).2 At step five, the ALJ concluded that, beginning on
February 2, 2017, there are no jobs that existed in significant
numbers in the national economy that Trimble could perform.
2 In reaching the conclusion, at step four, that Trimble could perform light
work prior to February 2, 2017, the ALJ considered the medical evidence and
Trimble’s symptoms. The ALJ concluded that Trimble’s statements about the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her impairments were
inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. The ALJ gave good weight
to Dr. Khan’s report, which did not specifically define any limitations for
Trimble. And the ALJ gave significant weight to Dr. Warren’s report in
reaching the conclusion that, as of February 2, 2017, there were no jobs in
significant numbers in the national economy for Trimble to perform.
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 6 of 16

-- 6 of 16 --

23-10210 Opinion of the Court 7
Thus, the ALJ determined that Trimble was disabled beginning on
February 2, 2017, and entitled to benefits.
Trimble appealed the ALJ’s decision to the SSA’s Appeals
Council (“AC”), arguing that the ALJ’s finding that she was not
disabled before February 2, 2017, was not based on substantial
evidence and that the ALJ failed to apply appropriate legal
standards. The AC denied Trimble’s request for review.
Trimble then appealed to the district court. The district
court agreed that the ALJ failed to explain his reasoning for
determining that Trimble’s disability onset date was February 2,
2017—the date of Dr. Warren’s medical evaluation—and not
before then as alleged by Trimble in her application. Because of
the progressive nature of Trimble’s condition, the district court
concluded that the ALJ needed to discuss why the onset date was
not sooner. The district court remanded the case to the SSA to
make an onset date determination based on the advice of a medical
expert. The AC sent the case back to the ALJ, affirming the ALJ’s
initial finding that Trimble was disabled beginning February 2,
2017, and entitled to benefits as of that date, but it ordered the ALJ
to determine whether she was disabled before that date.
The ALJ held its second hearing on October 2, 2020. Dr.
Jaslow, a medical expert, testified that there were no objective
reasons for Trimble’s alleged limitations between September 2015
and February 2, 2017. He stated that Trimble had the capacity to
lift 15 pounds frequently and 25 pounds occasionally; could stand
and walk six hours a day; could sit for seven hours a day with
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 7 of 16

-- 7 of 16 --

8 Opinion of the Court 23-10210
breaks; could frequently climb ramps, stairs, and ladders; and could
occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. Dr. Jaslow based his
conclusion, in part, on the fact that, if Trimble was truly unable to
walk as much as she said she was, she would be experiencing severe
disuse atrophy in her lower extremities, which was contrary to
multiple examinations showing her ambulation was normal. Dr.
Jaslow further testified that, based on an Electromyography test
that was conducted in 2019, he believed that polyneuropathy
caused the pain in Trimble’s lower extremities rather than the
spinal disorder. And because Trimble had no motor weakness, this
was not a severe impairment.
A vocational expert, Dr. Sabrina Singleton, testified. The
ALJ asked Dr. Singleton to evaluate the work limitations of a
hypothetical individual who could lift and carry 25 pounds
occasionally, could lift and carry 15 pounds frequently, could stand
or walk in combination for a total of six hours in an eight-hour day,
and could stand for a total of seven hours in an eight-hour day. Dr.
Singleton concluded that such an individual could perform work as
a meat packer and a poultry hanger—two jobs that Trimble had
previously held—as well as three light exertion jobs that she had
not previously performed.
In December 2020, the ALJ denied Trimble’s application,
concluding that she was not disabled from September 15, 2015, to
February 2, 2017. The ALJ conducted the same five-step analysis
that it conducted in its 2017 denial. The ALJ concluded that, based
on the medical evidence and Trimble’s symptoms for the time
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 8 of 16

-- 8 of 16 --

23-10210 Opinion of the Court 9
period in question, Trimble had the capacity to perform medium
work as defined in §§ 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c) with some minor
limitations. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Trimble was capable of
making a successful adjustment to other work that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy from September 15,
2015, through February 2, 2017. Consequently, the ALJ
determined that she was not disabled during the referenced time
period, and he denied Trimble’s claim.
In reaching his conclusion, the ALJ afforded various weight
to the different medical evidence. The ALJ afforded some weight
to Dr. Whitman’s evaluation, which concluded that Trimble
would be able to perform work at the light exertional level. The
ALJ afforded good weight to Dr. Khan’s April 2015 evaluation,
which stated that Trimble would be able to stand, carry, and handle
objects but may have difficulty sitting, walking, or lifting for
extended periods of time. The ALJ afforded “lesser weight” to Dr.
Warren’s opinion of Trimble’s functional limitations because Dr.
Warren was not an orthopedic surgeon and his opinion was
inconsistent with the medical findings. The ALJ afforded
significant weight to Dr. Jaslow’s testimony because Dr. Jaslow
considered the evidence in its entirety, was a board-certified
orthopedic surgeon, and his testimony was subject to cross-
examination in a recorded hearing.
Trimble appealed the ALJ’s decision to the AC, which again
denied her appeal. Trimble then filed a complaint in federal district
court against the Commissioner of the SSA, alleging that the ALJ’s
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 9 of 16

-- 9 of 16 --

10 Opinion of the Court 23-10210
denial of disability benefits to her was not supported by substantial
evidence. Further, she argued that the ALJ’s decision violated the
law of the case doctrine along with the mandates of the AC and the
district court. The district court disagreed and affirmed the ALJ’s
decision. Trimble appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Trimble argues that the ALJ’s decision violated
the mandate of the district court and the law of the case doctrine.
Trimble also argues that the ALJ’s finding that the disability onset
date was February 2, 2017 (meaning that she was not disabled prior
to that date), was not supported by substantial evidence. We
address each argument in turn and conclude (1) that the ALJ did
not violate the mandate of the district court or the law of the case
doctrine and (2) that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding
of a disability onset date of February 2, 2017.
A. Whether the ALJ’s decision violated the mandate of the district
court or the law of the case doctrine.
Trimble argues that “the law of the case consists of the
findings and conclusions of the [d]istrict [c]ourt [on her first
appeal], the [AC’s] remand order, and the non-vacated portion of
the ALJ’s [first] decision.” Specifically, she states that the following
findings are the law of the case: (1) Trimble was disabled as of
February 2, 2017; (2) her condition was constantly deteriorating;
and (3) there is nothing in the record indicating that her condition
worsened to the point of being a disability on February 2, 2017, as
opposed to an earlier date. Trimble argues that the ALJ violated
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 10 of 16

-- 10 of 16 --

23-10210 Opinion of the Court 11
the district court’s mandate and the law of the case doctrine by
determining an onset date of February 2, 2017, without explaining
why that date was correct as opposed to an earlier date.
We review whether the ALJ has complied with a remand
order and the application of the law of the case doctrine de novo.
See Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 885–86 (1989); Transamerica
Leasing, Inc. v. Inst. of London Underwriters, 430 F.3d 1326, 1331 (11th
Cir. 2005). Under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law are binding in all subsequent
proceedings in the same case, whether in the trial court or on a
later appeal. This That And The Other Gift And Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb
Cnty., 439 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th Cir. 2006). The mandate rule, a
specific application of the law of the case doctrine, requires
compliance on remand with the appellate court’s instructions and
forecloses relitigation of any issue that the appellate court expressly
or impliedly decided. See Cambridge Univ. Press v. Albert, 906 F.3d
1290, 1299 (11th Cir. 2018). “Deviation from the [district] court’s
remand order in the subsequent administrative proceedings is []
legal error, subject to reversal on further judicial review.” Sullivan,
490 U.S. at 886. However, the ALJ has a basic obligation to develop
a full and fair record. Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th
Cir. 1981). We have not decided whether the law of the case or
mandate rules apply in social security cases. See Weidner v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 81 F.4th 1341, 1345 (11th Cir. 2023).
Here, assuming that the mandate rule and law of the case
doctrine apply to social security cases, the ALJ did not violate
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 11 of 16

-- 11 of 16 --

12 Opinion of the Court 23-10210
either. Trimble misreads the district court’s remand order as
necessarily requiring the ALJ to find her disabled at some point
prior to February 2, 2017. In Trimble’s view, the remand required
the ALJ to determine when she became disabled before February 2,
2017, not if she became disabled before February 2, 2017. But the
express mandate of the district court was for “the ALJ to make an
onset date determination based on the advice of a medical expert.”
Indeed, as the district court correctly pointed out, the remand
order “did not expressly or impliedly require the ALJ to assign a
different onset date—only that he make the onset date
determination with the assistance of a medical expert.” The ALJ
complied with this mandate by consulting Dr. Jaslow.
With respect to Trimble’s law of the case argument more
generally, Trimble fails to show how the ALJ violated this doctrine.
She claims the district court’s statement in her first appeal that the
medical records did not clearly indicate that her condition
worsened on February 2, 2017, as opposed to some earlier date, is
law of the case. She is incorrect. In context, the district court was
simply explaining the error that the ALJ needed to correct on
remand to satisfy the ALJ’s obligation to develop a full and fair
record. And with the supplement of Dr. Jaslow’s testimony, the
record was developed sufficiently for the ALJ’s determination that
she was not disabled before February 2, 2017. Nor are we
persuaded by Trimble’s argument that the ALJ departed from the
district court’s finding that Trimble’s condition was constantly
deteriorating. This finding is not mutually exclusive with the ALJ’s
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 12 of 16

-- 12 of 16 --

23-10210 Opinion of the Court 13
determination that Trimble’s condition did not worsen to the point
of a disability until February 2, 2017. 3
B. Whether the ALJ’s implied finding that Trimble’s disability
onset date was February 2, 2017, is supported by substantial
evidence.
Trimble also argues that the ALJ’s finding that her disability
onset date was February 2, 2017, is not supported by substantial
evidence. She argues that Dr. Jaslow’s medical testimony was
flawed because he relied on medical records outside of the relevant
time frame. Thus, she argues his testimony should not have
overridden Dr. Warren’s medical evaluation indicating that she
was disabled in September 2015.
In a social security case, we review the agency’s legal
conclusions de novo, and its factual findings by determining
whether they are supported by substantial evidence. Ingram v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007).
Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176,
1178 (11th Cir. 2011). When an ALJ denies benefits and the AC
3 Trimble also argues that the ALJ violated the law of the case doctrine by
making findings as to her impairment through February 2, 2017, instead of
through February 1, 2017. The SSA argues that this was a scrivener’s error.
We agree. While at one point the ALJ did state that Trimble was not under a
disability through February 2, 2017, the ALJ then correctly stated, at the end
of the opinion, that Trimble was not under a disability through February 1,
2017.
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 13 of 16

-- 13 of 16 --

14 Opinion of the Court 23-10210
denies review, we review the ALJ’s decision as the Commissioner’s
final decision. Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001).
We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or
substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. Winschel,
631 F.3d at 1178.
To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ
considers medical opinions from acceptable medical sources,
including physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.902(a)(1), 416.913(a)(2). A
medical opinion is a statement from a medical source about what
a claimant can do despite her impairments and whether she has an
impairment-related limitation. Id. § 416.913(a)(2). For claims filed
before March 27, 2017, the SSA is required to give a treating
physician’s opinion more weight unless there was good cause to
discount it. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1527(c)(2).
An ALJ “must state with particularity the weight given to
different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel, 631
F.3d at 1179. And an ALJ may not improperly substitute his
judgment of the claimant’s condition for that of the medical and
vocational experts. Freeman v. Schweiker, 681 F.2d 727, 731 (11th
Cir. 1982). In addition to determining that an individual is disabled,
the ALJ must also establish the onset date of disability, by
consulting the applicant’s allegations, work history, and medical
and other evidence. SSR 18-1p.
Here, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that
Trimble was not disabled from September 15, 2015, through
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 14 of 16

-- 14 of 16 --

23-10210 Opinion of the Court 15
February 1, 2017. As an initial matter, because Trimble’s claim was
filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to give Trimble’s
treating physician’s evaluation more weight unless there was good
cause to discount it. § 404.1527(d)(2); see § 404.1527(c)(2). But
Trimble’s treating physicians gave inconsistent evaluations and as
a result, the ALJ afforded their opinions less weight.
For example, Dr. Warren’s evaluation on February 2, 2017,
indicated that Trimble had a much more severe medical condition
than any of Trimble’s other treating physicians had diagnosed her
with over the preceding years. While Dr. Warren stated that
Trimble’s condition required her to be lying down or sleeping for
6-7 hours of an 8-hour day, Dr. Frenette’s evaluation just a month
earlier stated that Trimble had normal station and gait, normal
movement in all extremities, and normal flexion and extension. As
Dr. Jaslow pointed out, if Trimble was walking as little as she had
indicated, she would have had severe disuse atrophy in her lower
extremities. And none of the medical reports were indicative of
disuse atrophy. Thus, Dr. Warren’s evaluation that Trimble was
disabled as early as September 15, 2015, was discounted by the fact
that his evaluation was inconsistent with the objective medical
evaluations for the period prior to his evaluation on February 2,
2017. The ALJ further discounted Dr. Warren’s evaluation based
on the fact that he was not an orthopedic surgeon.
On the other hand, the ALJ was justified in giving significant
weight to Dr. Jaslow’s opinion. Dr. Jaslow was an orthopedic
surgeon and was able to consider the full medical record, and was
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 15 of 16

-- 15 of 16 --

16 Opinion of the Court 23-10210
appointed on remand for the sole purpose of assisting the ALJ in
determining the proper onset date. Dr. Jaslow’s testimony is not
discounted by the fact that he relied on medical opinions outside of
the relevant time period, as we have recognized that such opinions
may be informative of the condition of the individual during the
relevant time period. See Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r,
806 F.3d 1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2015).
Overall, the ALJ had more than a scintilla of evidence to
support his finding that Trimble was not disabled prior to February
2, 2017. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. Thus, his determination
was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-10210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023 Page: 16 of 16

-- 16 of 16 --