Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Case 19 O 527/16
LG Darmstadt · Nov 10, 2025
GermanyEditorial impact: lowfake citationstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In LG Darmstadt No. 19 O 527/16, the court set a court-appointed expert’s requested EUR 2,374.50 remuneration to EUR 0.00. It found the medical report unusable because the expert had not clearly established personal authorship, had not examined the claimant, and had substantially used AI without disclosure; the decision cited AI-typical repetitions, formatting, and generic file-summary language.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions
- Why it matters now
- Hold outside experts to the same AI-verification standard as attorneys; fabricated exhibits zero out their fee.
Why this matter is tracked
In LG Darmstadt No. 19 O 527/16, the court set a court-appointed expert’s requested EUR 2,374.50 remuneration to EUR 0.00. It found the medical report unusable because the expert had not clearly established personal authorship, had not examined the claimant, and had substantially used AI without disclosure; the decision cited AI-typical repetitions, formatting, and generic file-summary language.
Operational lesson
Hold outside experts to the same AI-verification standard as attorneys; fabricated exhibits zero out their fee.
Record details
CourtLG Darmstadt
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateNov 10, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeExpert
OutcomeExpert fees reduced to naught
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Expert fees reduced to naught
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Case 19 O 527/16?
- In LG Darmstadt No. 19 O 527/16, the court set a court-appointed expert’s requested EUR 2,374.50 remuneration to EUR 0.00. It found the medical report unusable because the expert had not clearly established personal authorship, had not examined the claimant, and had substantially used AI without disclosure; the decision cited AI-typical repetitions, formatting, and generic file-summary language.
- Why does Case 19 O 527/16 matter for legal AI risk?
- Hold outside experts to the same AI-verification standard as attorneys; fabricated exhibits zero out their fee.
- What does the public record establish about Case 19 O 527/16?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Case 19 O 527/16 summary?
- The recorded source is rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.