Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Blackburn v. United States
W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 7, 2026
OK / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Davoll, 194 F.3d 1116, 1138 for the proposition that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) limits treating-physician opinion testimony as claimed; court found the pinpointed pages discuss lay-witness scope, not non-retained expert testimony — mischaracterization. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in W.D. Oklahoma, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Davoll, 194 F.3d 1116, 1138 for the proposition that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) limits treating-physician opinion testimony as claimed; court found the pinpointed pages discuss lay-witness scope, not non-retained expert testimony — mischaracterization. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in W.D. Oklahoma, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
OklahomaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Oklahoma
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateApr 7, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Davoll, 194 F.3d 1116, 1138 for the proposition that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) limits treating-physician opinion testimony as claimed; court found the pinpointed pages discuss lay-witness scope, not non-retained expert testimony — mischaracterization.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 611 F.3d 1222, 1237 as holding treating physicians may not give opinions formed in anticipation of litigation; court found that opinion does not discuss treating-physician testimony — misrepresentation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Hall v. United States, 2018 WL 1620923 (D. Colo. Apr. 3, 2018)' to support a proposition, but the provided Westlaw identifier directed to Poppino v. Berryhill, an unrelated decision that does not support the quote — a miscitation/fabricated support.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Davoll, 194 F.3d 1116, 1138 (10th Cir. 1999) for the proposition that treating-physician opinions are limited under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C); court noted the cited pages address a treating physician as a lay witness and do not support Plaintiff's argument.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 611 F.3d 1222, 1237 (10th Cir. 2010) as holding treating physicians may not testify to opinions developed in anticipation of litigation; court found that opinion does not discuss treating physicians.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Hall v. United States, 2018 WL 1620923 (D. Colo. Apr. 3, 2018) for a proposition about VA doctors; court observed the Westlaw identifier led to Poppino v. Berryhill (D.N.M.), which is unrelated and does not support the quoted proposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Blackburn v. United States?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Davoll, 194 F.3d 1116, 1138 for the proposition that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) limits treating-physician opinion testimony as claimed; court found the pinpointed pages discuss lay-witness scope, not non-retained expert testimony — mischaracterization. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Blackburn v. United States matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in W.D. Oklahoma, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Blackburn v. United States?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Blackburn v. United States summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.