Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
D. Arizona · Sep 5, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Arizona
- Record ID
- thompson-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-2025-09-05
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the motion to strike the problematic portions of the Opening Brief and affirmed the underlying ALJ decision.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
If counsel has prior AI-citation incidents, require dual-attorney verification on every brief before filing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court identified the deficiencies as consistent with AI-generated hallucinations.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.