AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 26, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesPaananen v. Peckham, Inc.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Paananen v. Peckham, Inc.

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

W.D. Michigan · Oct 23, 2026

MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff claimed that Grenier distinguished between a “medical release” and a “comprehensive evaluation from a general practitioner testing a worker for physical or mental impairments.” The court searched Grenier and found no such quote or variation, deeming the citation fictitious. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in W.D. Michigan. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff claimed that Grenier distinguished between a “medical release” and a “comprehensive evaluation from a general practitioner testing a worker for physical or mental impairments.” The court searched Grenier and found no such quote or variation, deeming the citation fictitious. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in W.D. Michigan. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MIOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtW.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateOct 23, 2026
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Warning

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: Case Law | The plaintiff claimed that Grenier distinguished between a “medical release” and a “comprehensive evaluation from a general practitioner testing a worker for physical or mental impairments.” The court searched Grenier and found no such quote or variation, deeming the citation fictitious.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Paananen v. Peckham, Inc.?
Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff claimed that Grenier distinguished between a “medical release” and a “comprehensive evaluation from a general practitioner testing a worker for physical or mental impairments.” The court searched Grenier and found no such quote or variation, deeming the citation fictitious. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Paananen v. Peckham, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in W.D. Michigan. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Paananen v. Peckham, Inc.?
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.
Which source supports this Paananen v. Peckham, Inc. summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; 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.

Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (2)W.D. Michigan · Dec 1, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsKamps v. British Crown Corporation, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jan 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJonathan David Deak v. Mike Schuitema, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jun 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDavid Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers AutomotiveW.D. Michigan · Nov 6, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsLothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1)W.D. Michigan · Aug 29, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsChecks Aciek Ateny Nai v. National Asset Mortgage, LLC, et al.W.D. Michigan · Mar 11, 2026same court · fake citations + trial

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.