2015 ORS 427.270¹
Report of diagnostic evaluation
  • recommendations of examining facility
  • appointment of persons to conduct additional examination

(1) The examining facility conducting the diagnostic evaluation shall make its report in writing to the court. Where components of the diagnostic evaluation have been performed within the previous year according to Department of Human Services rules and ORS 427.105 (Diagnostic evaluations), and the records of the evaluation are available to the examining facility pursuant to ORS 179.505 (Disclosure of written accounts by health care services provider) and department rules, the results of such evaluation may be introduced in court in lieu of repetition of those components by the examining facility. If the facility finds, and shows by its report, that the person examined has an intellectual disability and is in need of commitment for residential care, treatment and training, the report shall include a recommendation as to the type of treatment or training facility most suitable for the person. The report shall also advise the court whether in the opinion of the examining facility the person and, if the person is a minor or incapacitated, the parents or legal guardian of the person would cooperate with voluntary treatment or training and whether the person would benefit either from voluntary treatment or training or from appointment of a legal guardian or conservator.

(2) Upon request by the person or the parent, legal guardian or legal counsel of the person, the court shall appoint an additional physician or psychologist, or both, to examine the person and make separate reports in writing to the court. However, the court shall not appoint more than one additional physician and one additional psychologist to examine the person. [1979 c.683 §21; 2011 c.658 §17]

Chapter 427

Notes of Decisions

Former commit­ment pro­vi­sions of this chapter were constitu­tional. State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Standard of proof in former version of this chapter was proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

As commit­ment pro­ceed­ing is not crim­i­nal matter, principle of double jeopardy has no applica­tion. State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Preemp­tion of the Oregon Revised Statutes by the pro­vi­sions of the Interstate Compact, (1973) Vol 36, p 297; civil commit­ment to Mental Health Division of per­son against whom crim­i­nal charges are pending, (1980) Vol 41, p 91

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 439 (1979)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 427—Persons With Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors427.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 427, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano427.­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.