Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Sandra Collier, et al.

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

El 25 de febrero de 2026, S.D. Ohio (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado 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. Counsel cited United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2002) as supporting civil-extortion elements; the Court noted Pendergraft addresses criminal extortion under the Hobbs Act, not civil extortion under Ohio law (misapplied authority).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Counsel cited 'State v. Carter, 72 Ohio App. 3d 553 (2d Dist. 1991)' as authority for an element of civil extortion; the court's review found no such opinion supporting that proposition (case appears non-existent/mislinked).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Counsel relied on 'In re Protech, 51 F.4th 714 (6th Cir. 2022)' in briefing; the Court's independent review found no Sixth Circuit opinion matching that citation (phantom citation).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Counsel cited 'Dart Indus. Co. v. Hurd, 66 Ohio St. 2d 280 (1981)' for protection of settlement demand letters; the Court determined that citation was fabricated/misleading and not applicable as asserted.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Counsel cited Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (1995) as addressing extortion-related settlement privilege; the Court found Kenty does not support that proposition (misstated holding).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Counsel cited Office Depot, Inc. v. Impact Office Prods., LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ohio 2011) for a particular pleading/particularity rule for DTSA/OUTSA; Court found the cited passages do not state the proposition relied upon (mischaracterized authority).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Counsel cited 'State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 2015-Ohio-760' as supporting that settlement demand letters are non-actionable; Court found the cited authority was actually a different federal case (309 F. Supp. 2d 1019) and irrelevant to proposition.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Counsel quoted or paraphrased United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1999) as saying that informing authorities of misconduct cannot be an unlawful threat; the Court found no such language in Jackson and that the opinion does not stand for the asserted proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Counsel relied on 'State v. Milam, 2022-Ohio-3965 (10th Dist.)' for an extortion element; the Court found no such case addressing extortion (citation does not support proposition / appears nonexistent).

Desenlace

Contempt Finding; Brief Struck; Monetary Sanction. Sanción económica: 7500 USD. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1574/Kettering_USA_25_February_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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