Dean v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
U.S. District Court, District of Arizona · D. Ariz. · Arizona bar guidance
Conduct
Here the government's answering brief in a Social Security appeal attributed to a Ninth Circuit case a quotation the court said does not appear in it.
Consequence
No sanction or show-cause; the court flagged the concern in a footnote and ruled for the Commissioner on other authority.
Lesson
Here the court flagged a suspected AI-generated quotation in a government brief even while ruling for that party on the merits.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Dean v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. CV-25-08149-PCT-DWL, Order (D. Ariz. Sept. 22, 2026) (Lanza, J.), ECF No. 17, at 13 n.2
- Decided
- September 22, 2026
Summary
Kimberly Dean sought judicial review of the denial of her application for Social Security disability benefits. One issue was whether the administrative law judge permissibly discounted a consultative examiner's opinions as too vague to specify functional limitations. In a footnote to its discussion of that principle, the court noted that the Commissioner's answering brief (Doc. 15) cited Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010), and included a purported quotation: "[w]hen an opinion does not prescribe any specific limitations on a claimant, an ALJ need not assume that the medical source intended to include any limitations." The court stated: "This language does not appear in Turner, which raises a concern that the Commissioner has provided an AI-hallucinated quotation." The filer was the government's counsel, not the claimant. The order does not name the attorney who signed the Commissioner's brief.
- AI tool:
- Suspected (the court states the missing quotation "raises a concern that the Commissioner has provided an AI-hallucinated quotation"; no finding, no admission, no tool named)
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court noted the concern in a footnote and imposed no sanction, show-cause, or directive
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
District Judge Dominic W. Lanza affirmed the ALJ's decision and directed the Clerk to enter judgment and terminate the action. The plaintiff had raised three issues: whether the ALJ erred at step two by treating her anxiety and depression as non-severe, whether the residual functional capacity accounted for her mental impairments, and whether the ALJ properly evaluated a nurse practitioner's opinions. The court rejected each, and the Turner footnote attaches to its discussion of the consultative examiner's opinions within the second issue. The court resolved the vagueness issue on other Ninth Circuit and district court authority (including Ford v. Saul and Meanel v. Apfel) and did not rely on the Turner quotation. Beyond the footnote observation, the order takes no action on the quotation: it imposes no sanction, issues no order to show cause, and gives no direction to the Commissioner's counsel.
Why does Dean v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration matter for law firms using AI?
Dean is a footnote, but a pointed one. The court was addressing a routine question in Social Security review, whether an ALJ may discount a medical source opinion that describes an impairment’s “impact” without specifying functional limits, and it resolved that question on established Ninth Circuit authority. In a note, it observed that the Commissioner’s brief had offered Turner v. Commissioner for a quotation stating the same principle, and that “[t]his language does not appear in Turner, which raises a concern that the Commissioner has provided an AI-hallucinated quotation.”
The court did not find that AI was used, did not ask the government to explain, and did not act on the observation; it affirmed the ALJ’s decision for the Commissioner. The entry is in the collection because the Charlotin tracker lists it, and it is coded without a sanction.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the suspected fabrication came from the prevailing government party’s brief, and the court raised it on the public record even though the quotation made no difference to the outcome.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify quotations in agency and government briefs as carefully as in private filings. Here the flagged quotation came from the Commissioner's brief, not the claimant's.
- Review every supporting authority, not only the lead case. Here the court resolved the issue on other cases and noted the Turner quotation only in a footnote.
- Document the source of each quotation. Here the court tied its AI concern to the fact that the quoted language could not be found in the cited opinion.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is the court's stated concern, not a finding: the footnote says the missing language 'raises a concern that the Commissioner has provided an AI-hallucinated quotation.'