Madame [W] [Y] c. CPAM du Loiret
TJ Orléans · Apr 9, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- TJ Orléans
- Record ID
- madame-w-y-c-cpam-du-loiret-2026-04-09
- Observed outcome
- The court rejected the claimant's requests and condemned her to pay the costs of the proceedings.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court rejected the claimant's requests and ordered her to pay costs after determining that the legal citations provided were fabricated and akin to AI hallucinations. The court further held that the claimant failed to prove the necessary causal link between her medical condition and her former professional activities.
The court reasoned that the cited jurisprudence was invented for the litigation and that the claimant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to prove a causal link between her work and her illness, as the medical condition fell outside the statutory timeframes for professional illness presumptions.
This case illustrates the judicial identification and rejection of AI-generated fabricated case law in French administrative proceedings. It highlights the risk of relying on unverified research and the court's willingness to penalize parties for submitting hallucinated authorities.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Judgment on the merits following a 2024 interlocutory decision and subsequent hearings.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court characterizes the citations as akin to AI hallucinations.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.