Veterans Review and Appeal Board Decision No. 100006353091
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Courtready; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
CA VRAB · Oct 15, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | The medical opinion attributed the article to Konijnenberg A and others and cited Occupational and Environmental Medicine, but the Panel identified the actual authors as Ea Helene Korsgaard Thorsen, Annett Dalbøge, Nicholas Hovgaard, Johan Hviid Andersen, and Alexander Jahn, and the actual journal as Annals of Work Exposures and Health. The Panel found that the Nurse Practitioner’s report bore the hallmarks of having been written by AI and not reviewed by the practitioner. Two cited scientific articles were attributed to incorrect authors and journals, and the opinion incorrectly stated that the condition was diagnosed within 25 years of release from service, despite the period exceeding 31 years. The Panel gave the opinion no weight, emphasizing that AI-generated references must be checked for accuracy, but granted the claim based on the Veteran’s service records, occupational activities, symptoms, and applicable eligibility guidelines.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA VRAB. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | The medical opinion attributed the article to Konijnenberg A and others and cited Occupational and Environmental Medicine, but the Panel identified the actual authors as Ea Helene Korsgaard Thorsen, Annett Dalbøge, Nicholas Hovgaard, Johan Hviid Andersen, and Alexander Jahn, and the actual journal as Annals of Work Exposures and Health. The Panel found that the Nurse Practitioner’s report bore the hallmarks of having been written by AI and not reviewed by the practitioner. Two cited scientific articles were attributed to incorrect authors and journals, and the opinion incorrectly stated that the condition was diagnosed within 25 years of release from service, despite the period exceeding 31 years. The Panel gave the opinion no weight, emphasizing that AI-generated references must be checked for accuracy, but granted the claim based on the Veteran’s service records, occupational activities, symptoms, and applicable eligibility guidelines.
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA VRAB. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | The medical opinion attributed the article to Konijnenberg A and others and cited Occupational and Environmental Medicine, but the Panel identified the actual authors as Ea Helene Korsgaard Thorsen, Annett Dalbøge, Nicholas Hovgaard, Johan Hviid Andersen, and Alexander Jahn, and the actual journal as Annals of Work Exposures and Health.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | The medical opinion attributed the second article to Denard PJ and others and cited the American Journal of Sports Medicine, but the Panel identified the actual authors as Michael R. Davies, Volker Musahl, Brian Forsythe, Jacob G. Calcei, and C. Benjamin Ma, and the actual journal as the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The medical opinion incorrectly stated that the Veteran’s condition was diagnosed within the applicable 25-year period after release from service. The Panel noted that the relevant period was more than 31 years.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Veterans Review and Appeal Board Decision No. 100006353091?
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | The medical opinion attributed the article to Konijnenberg A and others and cited Occupational and Environmental Medicine, but the Panel identified the actual authors as Ea Helene Korsgaard Thorsen, Annett Dalbøge, Nicholas Hovgaard, Johan Hviid Andersen, and Alexander Jahn, and the actual journal as Annals of Work Exposures and Health. The Panel found that the Nurse Practitioner’s report bore the hallmarks of having been written by AI and not reviewed by the practitioner. Two cited scientific articles were attributed to incorrect authors and journals, and the opinion incorrectly stated that the condition was diagnosed within 25 years of release from service, despite the period exceeding 31 years. The Panel gave the opinion no weight, emphasizing that AI-generated references must be checked for accuracy, but granted the claim based on the Veteran’s service records, occupational activities, symptoms, and applicable eligibility guidelines.
- Why does Veterans Review and Appeal Board Decision No. 100006353091 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA VRAB. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Veterans Review and Appeal Board Decision No. 100006353091?
- 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 Veterans Review and Appeal Board Decision No. 100006353091 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.