Persons With Mental Illness

ORS 426.232
Emergency admission

  • notice
  • limit of hold


(1)

If a licensed independent practitioner believes a person who is brought to a hospital or nonhospital facility by a peace officer under ORS 426.228 (Custody) or by an individual authorized under ORS 426.233 (Authority of community mental health program director and of other individuals), or believes a person who is at a hospital or nonhospital facility, is dangerous to self or to any other person and is in need of emergency care or treatment for mental illness, and the licensed independent practitioner is not related to the person by blood or marriage, the licensed independent practitioner may do one of the following:

(a)

Detain the person and cause the person to be admitted or, if the person is already admitted, cause the person to be retained in a hospital where the licensed independent practitioner has admitting privileges or is on staff.

(b)

Approve the person for emergency care or treatment at a nonhospital facility approved by the authority.

(2)

When approving a person for emergency care or treatment at a nonhospital facility under this section, the licensed independent practitioner shall notify immediately the community mental health program director in the county where the person was taken into custody and maintain the person, if the person is being held at a hospital, for as long as is feasible given the needs of the person for mental or physical health or safety. However, under no circumstances may the person be held for longer than five judicial days. [1993 c.484 §4; 1995 c.201 §3; 1997 c.531 §4; 2009 c.595 §404; 2013 c.360 §40; 2015 c.461 §13]
Note: See note under 426.228 (Custody).
§§ 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