Persons With Mental Illness

ORS 426.072
Care while in custody

  • responsibilities of licensed independent practitioner
  • rules


(1)

A hospital or nonhospital facility must comply with provisions of subsection (2) of this section when a person alleged to have a mental illness is placed in custody at the hospital or nonhospital facility:

(a)

By a warrant of detention under ORS 426.070 (Initiation);

(b)

By a peace officer under ORS 426.228 (Custody) or other individual authorized under ORS 426.233 (Authority of community mental health program director and of other individuals); or

(c)

By a licensed independent practitioner under ORS 426.232 (Emergency admission).

(2)

In circumstances described under subsection (1) of this section, the hospital or nonhospital facility and a treating licensed independent practitioner must comply with all the following:

(a)

The person shall receive the care, custody and treatment required for mental and physical health and safety.

(b)

The treating licensed independent practitioner shall report any care, custody and treatment to the court as required in ORS 426.075 (Notice and records of treatment prior to hearing).

(c)

All methods of treatment, including the prescription and administration of drugs, shall be the sole responsibility of the treating licensed independent practitioner. However, the person shall not be subject to electroshock therapy or unduly hazardous treatment and shall receive usual and customary treatment in accordance with medical standards in the community.

(d)

The treating licensed independent practitioner shall be notified immediately of any seclusion of the person or use of mechanical restraints on the person. Every use of seclusion or mechanical restraint and the reasons for the use shall be made a part of the clinical record of the person over the signature of the treating licensed independent practitioner.

(e)

The treating licensed independent practitioner shall give the person the warning under ORS 426.123 (Observation of person in custody) at times the treating licensed independent practitioner determines the person will reasonably understand the notice. This paragraph only requires the notice to be given as often as the licensed independent practitioner determines is necessary to assure that the person is given an opportunity to be aware of the notice.

(3)

The Oregon Health Authority shall adopt rules necessary to carry out this section, including rules regarding the content of the medical record compiled during the current period of custody. [1987 c.903 §9; 1993 c.484 §13; 1997 c.531 §1; 2009 c.595 §386; 2013 c.360 §19; 2015 c.81 §1; 2015 c.461 §3]
§§ 426.070 to 426.170

Notes of Decisions

Where defendant in involuntary commitment proceeding asserted he was denied due process because investigator misled him as to how soon hearing would take place and did not take long enough to complete investigation but defendant did not assert that investigation report was inaccurate or incomplete, due process violation was not established. State v. Pieretti, 110 Or App 379, 823 P2d 426 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Mental Health Division recognition of commitment order issued by Indian tribal court, (1979) Vol 40, p 31

Law Review Citations

53 OLR 245-270 (1974)

§§ 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