2017 ORS 426.020¹
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]

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)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 426—Persons With Mental Illness; Dangerous Persons; Commitment; Housing, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors426.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 426, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano426.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.