Persons With Mental Illness

ORS 426.020
Superintendent

  • chief medical officer


(1)

The superintendent of a hospital referred to in ORS 426.010 (State hospitals for persons with mental illness) shall be a person the Oregon Health Authority considers qualified to administer the hospital. If the superintendent of any hospital is a physician licensed by the Oregon Medical Board, the superintendent shall serve as chief medical officer.

(2)

If the superintendent is not a physician, the Director of the Oregon Health Authority or the designee of the director shall designate a physician to serve as chief medical officer. The designated chief medical officer may be an appointed state employee in the unclassified service, a self-employed contractor or an employee of a public or private entity that contracts with the authority to provide chief medical officer services. Unless the designated chief medical officer is specifically appointed as a state employee in the unclassified service, the designated chief medical officer shall not be deemed a state employee for purposes of any state statute, rule or policy.

(3)

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the designated chief medical officer may supervise physicians and naturopathic physicians who are employed by the hospital or who provide services at the hospital pursuant to a contract.

(b)

The designated chief medical officer may delegate all or part of the authority to supervise other physicians and naturopathic physicians at the hospital to a physician who is employed by the state, a self-employed contractor or an employee of a public or private entity that contracts with the authority to provide physician services. [Amended by 1955 c.651 §4; 1969 c.391 §1; 1973 c.807 §2; 1987 c.158 §76; 2003 c.14 §234; 2007 c.71 §116; 2009 c.59 §1; 2009 c.828 §14; 2017 c.356 §48]
§§ 426.005 to 426.395

Notes of Decisions

The doctor-patient privilege applies under these sections. State v. O'Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

Prior to commitment there must be evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is mentally ill as defined. State v. O'Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

The Oregon commitment statutes are not unconstitutional on the grounds of vagueness or as an invasion of privacy as protected by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. State v. O'Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

Oregon Constitution did not require jury in mental commitment hearings. State v. Mills, 36 Or App 727, 585 P2d 1143 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Alleged mentally ill person does not have right to remain silent in civil commitment proceeding. State v. Matthews, 46 Or App 757, 613 P2d 88 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

9 WLJ 63-85 (1973)

Chapter 426

Notes of Decisions

The entire statutory scheme of involuntary commitment provides adequate procedural safeguards which satisfies the requirements of due process and equal protection. Dietrich v. Brooks, 27 Or App 821, 558 P2d 357 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

County of residence paying mental commitment costs, (1979) Vol 40, p 147; civil commitment to Mental Health Division of person against whom criminal charges are pending, (1980) Vol 41, p 91

Law Review Citations

16 WLR 448 (1979)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021