Blackburn v. United States

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 7 de abril de 2026, W.D. Oklahoma (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Davoll, 194 F.3d 1116, 1138 for the proposition that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) limits treating-physician opinion testimony as claimed; court found the pinpointed pages discuss lay-witness scope, not non-retained expert testimony — mischaracterization.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 611 F.3d 1222, 1237 as holding treating physicians may not give opinions formed in anticipation of litigation; court found that opinion does not discuss treating-physician testimony — misrepresentation.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited 'Hall v. United States, 2018 WL 1620923 (D. Colo. Apr. 3, 2018)' to support a proposition, but the provided Westlaw identifier directed to Poppino v. Berryhill, an unrelated decision that does not support the quote — a miscitation/fabricated support.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Davoll, 194 F.3d 1116, 1138 (10th Cir. 1999) for the proposition that treating-physician opinions are limited under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C); court noted the cited pages address a treating physician as a lay witness and do not support Plaintiff's argument.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 611 F.3d 1222, 1237 (10th Cir. 2010) as holding treating physicians may not testify to opinions developed in anticipation of litigation; court found that opinion does not discuss treating physicians.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Hall v. United States, 2018 WL 1620923 (D. Colo. Apr. 3, 2018) for a proposition about VA doctors; court observed the Westlaw identifier led to Poppino v. Berryhill (D.N.M.), which is unrelated and does not support the quoted proposition.

Desenlace

Warning. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1965/Blackburn_v_m5HCIWT._USA_USA_7_April_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.