2015 ORS 426.307¹
Court hearing
  • continuance
  • attorney
  • examination
  • determination of mental illness
  • order of further commitment
  • period of commitment

If a person with mental illness requests a hearing under ORS 426.301 (Release of committed person) or if the court proceeds under ORS 426.275 (Effect of failure to adhere to condition of placement) (5), the following provisions apply:

(1) The hearing shall be conducted as promptly as possible and at a time and place as the court may direct.

(2) If the person requests a continuance in order to prepare for the hearing or to obtain legal counsel to represent the person, the court may grant postponement and detention during postponement as provided under ORS 426.095 (Commitment hearing).

(3) The person has the right to representation by or appointment of counsel as provided under ORS 426.100 (Advice of court) subject to ORS 135.055 (Compensation and expenses of appointed counsel), 151.216 (Duties) and 151.219 (Public defense services executive director).

(4) If the person requests an examination by a physician or other qualified professional as recommended by the Oregon Health Authority and is without funds to retain a physician or other qualified professional for purposes of the examination, the court shall appoint a physician or other qualified professional, other than a member of the staff from the facility where the person is confined, to examine the person at no expense to the person and to report to the court the results of the examination.

(5) The provisions of ORS 40.230 (Rule 504. Psychotherapist-patient privilege), 40.235 (Rule 504-1. Physician-patient privilege), 40.240 (Rule 504-2. Nurse-patient privilege) and 40.250 (Rule 504-4. Regulated social worker-client privilege) do not apply to the use of medical records from the current period of commitment or to testimony related to such records or period of commitment in connection with hearings under this section. The court may consider as evidence such reports and testimony.

(6) The court shall then conduct a hearing and after hearing the evidence and reviewing the recommendations of the treating and examining physicians or other qualified professionals, the court shall determine whether the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment. If in the opinion of the court the individual is still a person with mental illness by clear and convincing evidence and is in need of further treatment, the court may order commitment to the authority for an additional indefinite period of time up to 180 days.

(7) At the end of the 180-day period, the person shall be released unless the authority or facility again certifies to the committing court that the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment, in which event the procedures set forth in ORS 426.301 (Release of committed person) to 426.307 (Court hearing) shall be followed. [1973 c.838 §17; 1975 c.690 §21; 1979 c.408 §5; 1987 c.803 §24; 1987 c.903 §§33,33a; 1989 c.171 §53; 1993 c.484 §24; 1997 c.649 §4; 2001 c.962 §61; 2009 c.595 §420; 2013 c.360 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Where certificate of need for further treat­ment is filed prior to expira­tion of 180 days, passage of 180th day does not deprive court of jurisdic­tion. State v. G., 26 Or App 197, 552 P2d 574 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Further commit­ment certifica­tion process did not deprive patient of federal due process rights or rights under state constitu­tion. State v. Johansen, 125 Or App 365, 866 P2d 470 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

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 (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 426, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano426.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.