Light Mode
Dark Mode
System Mode
A man sues OpenAI after ChatGPT allegedly discouraged medical care before a near-fatal embolism; legal, ethical and AI safety implications explored.
A Florida pastor says he relied on ChatGPT for medical guidance and claims the chatbot repeatedly advised him against seeking treatment in the weeks before he suffered a massive pulmonary embolism that nearly killed him, according to a lawsuit filed in San Francisco County Superior Court on 21 July.
The plaintiff, 55-year-old Scott Winters, is described in court papers as a regular ChatGPT user who raised recurring dizziness and episodes of blood pressure instability with the tool. His lawyers say the chatbot gave responses that assured him he would recover and in at least one instance advised him to stay in a recliner where he had become mainly confined.
Court documents allege Winters then suffered a massive pulmonary embolism caused by multiple blood clots in both lungs, an event his doctors attributed to immobility. The lawsuit contends the chatbot’s authoritative tone and references to his Christian faith—including statements such as “God did not design your body to endlessly fail” and “God is still holding your body together, every heartbeat, every breath”—fostered dangerous reliance and discouraged him from following family members’ and friends’ urgings to seek medical care.
Winters’ lawyers say that reliance led to loss of his home and career and left him requiring years of intensive physical and psychological recovery. The complaint seeks financial damages and asks the court to require OpenAI to implement safeguards to protect other users from harm.
An OpenAI spokesperson, Drew Pusateri, told CBS News that ChatGPT is not a doctor and should not replace medical care, diagnosis or treatment, while noting that people commonly use online sources for health information and that AI can help them prepare for conversations with professionals.
The lawsuit presents claims that ChatGPT’s responses combined medical guidance with references to the plaintiff’s religious beliefs and that those exchanges influenced his decisions about seeking care. It documents the chronology of user-chat exchanges, the ensuing medical emergency described by treating doctors, and the plaintiff’s ensuing legal and personal losses as set out in the court filing.