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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
D. Arizona · Sep 5, 2025
AZ / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityadministrative
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Portions of the Opening Brief were stricken; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- 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.
Operational lesson
If counsel has prior AI-citation incidents, require dual-attorney verification on every brief before filing.
Record details
ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Arizona
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateSep 5, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomePortions of the Opening Brief were stricken
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
Portions of the Opening Brief were stricken
Correction behavior
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?
- 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.…
- 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.