‘It Does Not Matter if Generative AI Told You So’: Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Strikes Brief for Fabricated Authority

In a striking reminder that advocacy still demands accuracy and candor, the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission issued a final award in Injury No. 22-074974 (Daniel Justin Gazaway v. Nostrum Pharmaceuticals, LLC) that does more than review an Administrative Law Judge’s decision. It sends a clear warning: fabricated legal authority, whether generated by artificial intelligence or otherwise, will not be tolerated.

Background and Procedural Posture

Employee Daniel Justin Gazaway prevailed before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who issued an award on August 15, 2025, allowing compensation under Missouri Workers’ Compensation statutes. The employer and insurer timely sought review under § 287.480 RSMo, and the Commission established a briefing schedule pursuant to its rules.

What followed, however, shifted the focus of the appeal away from the merits and squarely onto the integrity of the briefing itself.

The Problem: Nonexistent Case Citations

Upon review of the employer/insurer’s brief, the Commission identified multiple citations to cases that simply do not exist. Among them were purported Missouri appellate decisions that, upon closer inspection, either corresponded to unrelated cases, out-of-state decisions, or could not be found at all.

The Commission meticulously traced each citation:

• One citation appeared to borrow a reporter citation from an unrelated Missouri real estate case while referencing an entirely different style of case.

• Another pointed to a nonexistent Missouri decision but matched a Texas appellate opinion involving unrelated subject matter.

• A third citation corresponded to a different Texas criminal case altogether.

  
  

The Commission’s Response: Striking the Brief

Citing Rule 8 CSR 20-3.030(5)(E), the Commission exercised its authority to strike the employer/insurer’s brief in its entirety. That rule permits the Commission to disregard filings that violate procedural requirements or involve conduct prejudicial to the efficient and timely adjudication of an appeal.

The Commission emphasized that false citations do exactly that. Verifying whether an authority exists consumes judicial resources and delays resolution of pending matters. Accordingly, such conduct undermines the integrity and efficiency of the adjudicative process.

Duty of Candor and the Role of AI

The Commission relied on Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. App. 2024), to underscore a fundamental principle: citing nonexistent authority is a “flagrant violation” of the duty of candor owed to a tribunal. A fabricated opinion is not “existing law,” nor can it serve as a good-faith basis for legal argument.

The Commission quoted the Missouri Court of Appeals to make explicit what many courts have begun to articulate:

Citing nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement to a court[;] [i]t does not matter if [generative A.I.] told you so.”

Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. App. 2024), citing Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm, & Daniel G. Brown, Is Disclosure and Certification of the Use of Generative AI Really Necessary? 107 JUDICATURE68, 75 (2023).

This language reflects a growing judicial consensus that attorneys remain fully responsible for verifying the accuracy of their filings, regardless of the tools used to generate them. Reliance on AI does not excuse the submission of false or misleading authority.

Outcome of the Appeal

With the employer/insurer’s brief stricken, the Commission proceeded to review the employee’s brief and the record. Finding the ALJ’s decision supported by competent and substantial evidence, the Commission affirmed and adopted the award in full pursuant to RSMo § 286.090. The Commission also approved the attorney’s fee as fair and reasonable.

Because the brief was stricken, the Commission declined to address the employee’s separate motion to strike, rendering it moot.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

The Commission’s decision in Gazaway carries several important lessons for all members of the bar:

Verification is non-negotiable. Every citation must be checked. In the age of generative AI, tribunals are more alert than ever to authority that doesn’t exist. There’s no shortcut here—if you cite it, it must be real and must stand for the proposition cited.

AI is a tool, not a shield. Delegating research to AI doesn’t erase your responsibility. Accuracy and ethical obligations remain squarely on the attorney’s shoulders.

Sanctions can be swift and severe. Striking an entire brief is drastic, wiping out your arguments and leaving the Commission little reason to revisit the ALJ’s award. One misstep can erase months of work in a heartbeat.

Credibility is of paramount importance. Procedural consequences are just the start. Submitting false authority can inflict long-term reputational damage with tribunals that rely on candor and professionalism.

The Gazaway decision is a cautionary tale for anyone using AI in legal research or brief writing. As technology integrates into practice, the core duties of competence and candor remain unchanged.

To read the decision from the Commission, click here.

Disclaimer:  The information provided on this legal update is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the content, laws and regulations are constantly evolving, and the application of law can vary based on specific facts and circumstances.

Reading this legal update does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the author, Lanham Legal Services LLC, or any affiliated individuals. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information in this blog without seeking professional legal counsel tailored to your situation.

If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

© 2026 Lanham Legal Services LLC