AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMichael Redwine v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Michael Redwine v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America

W.D. Virginia · Dec 16, 2025

VA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified that the plaintiff submitted a non-existent case citation, 'McBeth v. Metro Life Ins. Co.,' which the plaintiff admitted was generated by AI tools. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument supported by this fabricated authority, though the dismissal was primarily based on the court's finding that the underlying benefit plan was exempt from ERISA as a governmental plan.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited McBeth v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2792439 (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2006); the Court could not locate the case and notes the plaintiff admitted it was generated by AI tools.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In an ERISA dispute, the plaintiff, Michael Redwine, filed a motion opposing the defendant's motion to dismiss. To support his argument that the governmental plan exemption was a fact-intensive question requiring discovery, Redwine cited 'McBeth v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2792439 (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2006).' The court was unable to locate this case in legal research databases. In his proposed sur-reply, the plaintiff admitted that the cited case does not exist and was generated by AI tools. The court ultimately granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding the plan was a governmental plan exempt from ERISA, and noted the plaintiff's reliance on the non-existent, AI-generated authority.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

VirginiaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore VAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtW.D. Virginia
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateDec 16, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeDefendant's motion to dismiss was granted.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The plaintiff admitted the case was generated by AI tools.

Procedural posture

Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited McBeth v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2792439 (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2006); the Court could not locate the case and notes the plaintiff admitted it was generated by AI tools.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Michael Redwine v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America?
The court identified that the plaintiff submitted a non-existent case citation, 'McBeth v. Metro Life Ins. Co.,' which the plaintiff admitted was generated by AI tools. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument supported by this fabricated authority, though the dismissal was primarily based on the court's finding that the underlying benefit plan was exempt from ERISA as a governmental plan.
Why does Michael Redwine v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Michael Redwine v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Michael Redwine v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America 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.

Suiter v. GM - General Motors, LLCW.D. Virginia · Mar 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsGail Fung v. Liberty UniversityW.D. Virginia · Feb 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBrian Bailey v. Hon. Clark A. Ritchie, et al.W.D. Virginia · Jan 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsUnited States v. Michael Shane DeBaere (2)W.D. Virginia · Jan 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsGavin Simpson v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLCW.D. Virginia · Dec 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsScott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.W.D. Virginia · Dec 9, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations