| Litigants: | Jablonski by Pahls v. United States |
| Courtseal: | Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg |
| Arguedate: | December 6, |
| Argueyear: | 1982 |
| Decidedate: | June 14, |
| Decideyear: | 1983 |
| Fullname: | Meghan Corinne Jablonski, a minor, by her Guardian ad Litem, Isobel C. Pahls v. United States of America |
| Citations: | 712 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1983) |
| Subsequent: | Amended Aug. 8, 1983 |
| Majority: | Wallace |
| Joinmajority: | Wright, Kennedy |
Jablonski by Pahls v. United States, 712 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1983)[1] 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.
Phillip Jablonski was dating Melinda Kimball and had threatened to kill her and her mother (Isobel 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 Kimball to leave Jablonski but did not warn her of his potential for violence. When Jablonski was discharged from the hospital, he killed Kimball.[2]
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.[3]