ORS 426.072¹
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]

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)

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 (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 426, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano426.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
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. Currency Information