Throughout this ERISA litigation, Plaintiff Donald Corley has repeatedly argued that the plain language of his pension-benefits Plan entitles him to a larger lump-sum pension payment than he actually received. This appeal is the second time this case has been before our court on this issue. See Fallin v. Commonwealth Indus., Inc., 695 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2012). In the first appeal, we held that the Benefits Committee’s interpretation of the Plan’s terms was not arbitrary or capricious. See id. at 516. Corley fully briefed this issue then, and it is precisely the same argument he raises now. Because we squarely decided the issue in the first appeal, we hold that the law of the case doctrine precludes us from reconsidering it. See Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056, 1071 (6th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.