Jablonski by Pahls v. United States

Jablonski by Pahls v. United States, 712 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1983) is a landmark case in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a mental health professional's duty to predict dangerousness includes consulting a patient's prior records, and that their duty to protect includes the involuntary commitment of a dangerous individual; simply warning the foreseeable victim is insufficient.

Facts

Mr. Jablonski was dating Ms. Kimball but had threatened to kill her and her mother (Ms. Pahls). After one incident that culminated in a threat towards her mother, she took him to the Loma Linda VA Hospital, where the doctor conducted a risk assessment, but did not consult his prior records; which documented a history of violent behavior. Based on this incomplete data, he determined erroneously that Jablonski was not a danger to himself or others and released him. He warned Ms. Kimball to leave Jablonski but did not warn her of his potential for violence. When Mr. Jablonski was discharged from the hospital, he killed Ms. Kimball.^[1]

Ruling

The court ruled that the doctor's failure to secure the patient's previous records constituted negligence, as the information in his files would have affected the risk assessment and thus the actions taken to protect the foreseeable victim.^[2]

Legacy

The legal precedent set by this case extends the duty of the mental health professional to secure previous records when conducting a risk assessment, and the duty to protect to include the involuntary hospitalization of a dangerous individual.

See also

• Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California
• Duty to protect
• Duty to warn

References

1. John M. Greene, M.D. (August 3, 2006). "Psychiatrist Duties: Tarasoff". Stanford University Department of Psychiatry. Retrieved 2008-07-20.
2. "Warning a Potential Victim of a Person's Dangerousness: Clinician's Duty or Victim's Right?". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 2006. Retrieved 2008-07-20.