Persons With Mental Illness

ORS 426.110
Appointment of examiners

  • qualifications
  • costs


The following requirements relating to the appointment of examiners for purposes of a hearing under ORS 426.095 (Commitment hearing) or 426.701 (Commitment of “extremely dangerous” person with mental illness) and 426.702 (Discharge from commitment of extremely dangerous person with mental illness) apply as described:

(1)

The judge shall appoint one qualified examiner. If requested, the judge shall appoint one additional qualified examiner. A request for an additional examiner under this subsection must be made in writing and must be made by the person alleged to have a mental illness or the attorney for the person.

(2)

To be qualified for purposes of this section, an examiner must:

(a)

Agree to be an examiner.

(b)

Be one of the following:

(A)

A physician licensed by the Oregon Medical Board who is competent to practice psychiatry as provided by the Oregon Health Authority or the Psychiatric Security Review Board by rule.

(B)

Certified by the authority or the Psychiatric Security Review Board as a mental health examiner qualified to make examinations for involuntary commitment proceedings.

(3)

The authority or the Psychiatric Security Review Board may establish, by rule, requirements for certification as a mental health examiner for purposes of subsection (2)(b)(B) of this section.

(4)

The cost of examiners under this section shall be paid as provided under ORS 426.250 (Payment of costs related to commitment proceedings). [Amended by 1973 c.838 §10; 1987 c.158 §77; 1987 c.903 §15; 2009 c.595 §390; 2013 c.715 §§5,16]
§§ 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