Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1PUKNFYGenerated October 26, 2026Evidence checked Oct 26, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Paananen v. Peckham, Inc.

W.D. Michigan · Oct 23, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
W.D. Michigan
Record ID
paananen-v-peckham-inc-2026-10-23
Observed outcome
Warning
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Employment
  • Trial
  • Warning
AI attribution
Not Established
Recorded tool
No tool named in source
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Warning
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

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

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.

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.