⚡ CASE DIGEST
Kleinschmidt (Tiffany K.) v. Commissioner of Social Security — E.D. Michigan, 16 January 2026
A federal court remanded a Social Security disability case while warning that a cited authority — Fleck v. Commissioner — appeared to be a ‘phantom’ case likely produced by generative AI. The court warned counsel that such citations had already led to sanctions in the same court and elsewhere.
Why it matters: Even social security disability appeals are not immune from AI hallucinations. Courts are now proactively warning counsel — and referring to prior sanctions in the same court as a deterrent.
Category: Hallucinations & Sanctions | Jurisdiction: USA | Read time: 5 min
Case at a Glance
| Full Citation | Tiffany K. v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:25-cv-10319 (E.D. Mich.) |
| Court | United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division |
| Date of Decision | 16 January 2026 |
| Category | AI Hallucinations & Sanctions |
| Jurisdiction | USA |
| AI Tool Used | Generative AI (specific tool not named) |
| Judgment / Order | Opinion and Order (ECF No. 18) |
Background
Tiffany K. filed for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits following an anoxic brain injury sustained at age 15 after a cardiac arrest. The Social Security Administration denied her claim, and she appealed to the Eastern District of Michigan. Her attorney filed a motion for summary judgment that included a citation to Fleck v. Commissioner of Social Security — a case that the court identified as a non-existent ‘phantom’ citation, likely the product of generative AI.
The AI Issue
The court identified a citation to Fleck v. Commissioner of Social Security that appeared to be a fabricated case — the product of generative AI hallucination. While the court granted the plaintiff’s motion and remanded the case for further proceedings, it used the opportunity to issue an explicit warning to counsel: AI-generated unverified citations had already led to sanctions in the Eastern District of Michigan and in other courts, and future instances would not be tolerated.
What the Court Decided
- The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or remand was granted — the SSI case was remanded to the Commissioner [substantive win for plaintiff].
- The government’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
- The court explicitly identified the Fleck v. Commissioner citation as a ‘phantom’ case likely from generative AI [AI hallucination flagged on record].
- Counsel was warned that future unconfirmed AI citations would not be tolerated and could result in sanctions [deterrent warning].
Key Quote
“[There] appears to be a non-existent ‘phantom’ case citation… likely caused by use of generative artificial intelligence (AI). Counsel and her law firm are HEREBY WARNED that citations of this sort and unconfirmed use of AI have led to sanctions in this Court and elsewhere, and future instances of this will not be tolerated.”
— Judge Anthony P. Patti, E.D. Michigan, 16 January 2026
The India Angle
Indian Law Equivalent: Indian courts have not yet imposed AI-specific sanctions, but the duty of verification is embedded in Rule 15 of the Bar Council of India Rules (duty not to mislead the court) and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Fabricated citations — whether AI-generated or otherwise — would constitute contempt before any Indian court.
Bar Council Rules: Bar Council of India Rule 15 requires advocates not to mislead the court. Submitting an AI-generated citation without verification is a clear breach. Disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar Council could follow, including suspension or removal from the roll.
Practical Advice for Indian Advocates: Verify every AI-generated case citation on SCC Online, Manupatra, or IndianKanoon before filing. Never rely on a citation you have not personally confirmed exists and says what the AI claims it says. AI hallucinations are a global phenomenon and Indian courts will follow the same enforcement trajectory.
Quick Takeaways
- Courts are now using the term ‘phantom case’ for AI-generated non-existent citations — a term entering the legal vocabulary.
- A substantive win does not protect an attorney from a warning on the record for AI-generated fake citations.
- Social security and administrative law cases — not just complex commercial litigation — are affected by AI hallucinations.