Altman Sibling Lawsuit Ends on Procedural Grounds After Plaintiff Skips Court-Ordered Medical Exam

A federal lawsuit accusing OpenAI CEO Sam Altman of childhood sexual abuse was dismissed Tuesday not because the claims lacked merit, but because the plaintiff refused to submit to a court-ordered independent medical examination. U.S. District Judge Zachary Bluestone ruled that Ann Altman’s failure to appear for the evaluation, despite explicit warnings that noncompliance would result in dismissal, left him no discretion to keep the case alive.

The dismissal highlights a critical procedural trap in civil litigation involving decades-old allegations: courts routinely require plaintiffs claiming ongoing psychological damages to undergo defense-requested evaluations. Refusing such an exam is widely viewed by defense attorneys as a strategic error that hands the opposing side a near-automatic win on procedural grounds.

Ann Altman, now in her late 20s, filed suit in January 2025 alleging her brother abused her at the family’s Missouri home between 1997 and 2006, starting when she was three and he was 12. The complaint stated the final incident occurred when Sam Altman was an adult. He is now 41.

The case had already survived one major hurdle. In March, Judge Bluestone dismissed the original sexual assault and battery claims as time-barred under standard statutes of limitations. However, he permitted Ann Altman to refile under a 2019 Missouri law that revived expired claims for childhood sexual abuse, giving survivors a window to sue regardless of how much time had passed. That amended complaint was the one dismissed Tuesday.

Sam Altman has consistently denied the allegations. In a joint statement with his mother and two younger brothers issued after the initial filing, the family called the claims “entirely untrue” and said Ann Altman faced “mental health challenges” and “refuses conventional treatment and lashes out at family members who are genuinely trying to help.” That statement, which defense attorneys likely viewed as evidentiary gold, foreshadowed the medical examination dispute.

The judge also granted Sam Altman’s request to withdraw a defamation counterclaim he had filed against his sister, effectively closing the door on both sides’ legal claims against each other in this forum.

Ann Altman’s attorney, Santos Perez, withdrew from the case in October. In a statement at the time, Perez wrote, “I am no longer authorized to comment on this case but I continue to believe in Annie.” The lawyer’s departure months before the medical exam showdown raises questions about whether strategic disagreements over compliance played a role.

For other plaintiffs relying on Missouri’s lookback window, the ruling serves as a stark reminder: procedural compliance is non-negotiable. Courts have broad authority to compel medical evaluations when psychological injury is claimed, and refusal rarely ends well for the plaintiff. Whether Ann Altman can appeal the dismissal or refile remains unclear; Judge Bluestone’s order did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.