289 P.3d 357
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant challenges involuntary civil commitment under ORS 426.130; State concedes no proof Appellant cannot meet basic needs but asserts danger to self.
- Court affirmed commitment, applying trial-court facts and ORAP 5.40(8)(c) deference rather than de novo review; de novo review only in exceptional cases.
- March 11, 2011, Appellant was taken to hospital after stopping six medications, suffering paranoia, hallucinations, and a seizure.
- Inpatients and hospital staff noted violent threats, property destruction, and noncompliance with medications; Appellant complied during hospitalization but denied threats.
- Treating psychiatrist testified continued noncompliance with treatment could be fatal without hospitalization; he could not return home due to a restraining order and living with his parents.
- On appeal, Appellant argues lack of near-term physical-harm risk if released; the court distinguishes cases where physical-condition risk is unclear, and holds sufficient clear and convincing evidence of danger to self on record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether danger to self was proven by clear and convincing evidence | Olsen standard requires near-term harm frommental disorder without meds | State showed risk of fatal consequences if untreated and noncompliance | Yes, danger to self proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether de novo review was warranted | Court should review de novo due to historical approach | No exceptional case; standard review applied | No; review limited to trial-court findings supported by evidence and legal errors only |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. R. E., 248 Or App 481, 273 P3d 341 (Or. App. 2012) (establishes standard of review for civil-commitment decisions under ORAP 5.40(8)(c))
- State v. M. L. F., 220 Or App 629, 188 P3d 368 (Or. App. 2008) (relevant for physical-condition risk when medications are refused)
- State v. Hayes, 202 Or App 63, 121 P3d 17 (Or. App. 2005) (addressed nature/severity of illness and near-term consequences of medication refusal)
- State v. Nguyen, 180 Or App 541, 43 P.2d 1218 (Or. App. 2002) (no evidence that diabetes was life-threatening or immediately harmful; near-term risk lacking)
- State v. Olsen, 208 Or App 686, 691, 145 P3d 350 (Or. App. 2006) (requires evidence of near-term harm from mental disorder without treatment)