Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
D. Arizona · Sep 5, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court granted the Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Opening Brief due to the inclusion of fabricated case citations, non-existent quotations, and mischaracterized legal authorities. The court noted these deficiencies were consistent with prior sanctions against counsel for AI-related citation errors.
- Why the court cared
- The court determined that the Opening Brief contained multiple citation-related deficiencies, including fabricated citations and mischaracterized authority, which necessitated striking the affected portions of the filing.
- Why it matters now
- If counsel has prior AI-citation incidents, require dual-attorney verification on every brief before filing.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | Opening Brief contained a quotation attributed to an existing case that did not actually appear in that form; the portion was stricken. Outcome: Portions of the Opening Brief were stricken. The court granted Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Opening Brief after Defendant raised concerns that the brief included a non-existent quotation attributed to an existing case, a mischaracterization of an existing case, a citation to a non-existent case, and a miscitation of a case that did not address the asserted issue. The court noted counsel had been sanctioned in a separate case for citation-related deficiencies consistent with AI-generated hallucinations. The stricken portions were removed and the ALJ decision was affirmed.
If counsel has prior AI-citation incidents, require dual-attorney verification on every brief before filing.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court identified the deficiencies as consistent with AI-generated hallucinations.
The court addressed a motion to strike or amend an Opening Brief filed by the Plaintiff in a Social Security disability appeal, subsequently affirming the ALJ's denial of benefits.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Opening Brief contained a quotation attributed to an existing case that did not actually appear in that form; the portion was stricken.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Opening Brief mischaracterized a proposition from an existing case; the portion was stricken.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening Brief cited a non-existent case (fabricated case citation); the portion was stricken.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Opening Brief miscited a case that did not address the asserted issue; the portion was stricken.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration?
- The court granted the Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Opening Brief due to the inclusion of fabricated case citations, non-existent quotations, and mischaracterized legal authorities. The court noted these deficiencies were consistent with prior sanctions against counsel for AI-related citation errors.
- Why does Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration matter for legal AI risk?
- If counsel has prior AI-citation incidents, require dual-attorney verification on every brief before filing.
- What does the public record establish about Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration?
- 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 Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration 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.