AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesCase 19 O 527/16
Evidence review: metadata only. The linked page is generic, shared, or insufficiently case-specific. This page therefore preserves only the structured corpus baseline.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Case 19 O 527/16

LG Darmstadt · Nov 10, 2025

GermanyEditorial impact: lowfake citationstrialNone Adjudicated
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.

  1. 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.

G.P. v. Jose Hernandez ArevaloW.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Philippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Santos v. Hoboken Public School District, et al.D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Morgan Cole v. Hobby Town Unlimited, Inc.C.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India & Anr.Supreme Court of India · Sep 2, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Willie C. Fortune v. CTA Certified TransmissionMissouri CA · Sep 1, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)