Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.120 (2026)

Examination report; rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      426.120 Examination report; rules. (1) Examiners appointed under ORS 426.110 shall do all of the following:

      (a) Examine the person as to mental condition.

      (b) Initiate the examination process prior to the hearing. Any failure to comply with this paragraph shall not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds to challenge the examination conducted by an examiner.

      (c) Make their separate reports in writing, under oath, to the court.

      (d) Upon completion of the hearing, file the reports with the clerk of the court.

      (2) The following is a nonexclusive list of requirements relating to the content of examination reports prepared under subsection (1) of this section:

      (a) If the examiners find, and show by their reports, that the person examined is a person with mental illness, the reports shall include a recommendation as to the type of treatment facility best calculated to help the person recover from mental illness.

      (b) Each report shall also advise the court whether in the opinion of the examiner the person with mental illness would cooperate with and benefit from a program of voluntary treatment.

      (c) Reports shall contain the information required by the Oregon Health Authority by rule. The authority shall adopt rules necessary to carry out this paragraph.

      (3) The examiner shall be allowed access to licensed independent practitioners, nurses or social workers and to medical records compiled during the current involuntary prehearing period of detention and the investigation report. Records and communications described in this subsection and related communications are not privileged under ORS 40.230, 40.235, 40.240 or 40.250. [Amended by 1973 c.838 §11; 1975 c.690 §7; 1987 c.903 §16; 1997 c.649 §3; 2009 c.595 §391; 2013 c.360 §26; 2015 c.461 §7]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “Third, appellant argues that it is reasonable to infer that the examiner did not begin the examination pro- cess prior to the hearing as required by ORS 426.120, see ORS 426.120(1)(b) (requiring the examiner to “[i]nitiate the examination process prior to the hearing”), and that…”
State v. K.J.B. (In re K.J.B.), 416 P.3d 291 (Or. 2018). “ORS 426.120. After all of the evidence is presented, the court may order the involuntary commitment of a person if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person has a mental disorder that causes the person to be dangerous to himself or herself, dangerous to others,…”
State v. T. C., 536 P.3d 591 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Had appellant brought this error to the trial court’s attention, the error could easily have been avoided.”
State v. Hitt, 41 P.3d 434 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Nor *566 were the examiners’ reports, which were included in the record at the original commitment proceeding, see ORS 426.120(1) (relating to admission of examiners’ reports), admitted as exhibits in this proceeding.”
State v. K. G., 544 P.3d 403 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “ORS 426.120. The civil commitment investigator, on the other hand, may or may not testify at the hearing, but the investiga- tor’s written report must be provided to the court in advance of the hearing.”
State v. J. K., 564 P.3d 940 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “Cite as 337 Or App 629 (2025) 637 Fourth, appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to enforce the terms of ORS 426.120(1)(b), which requires the examiner to “initiate the examination process prior to the hearing.”
Lee v. State of Or., 891 F. Supp. 1429 (D. Or. 1995). “110; ORS 426.120. A qualified examiner is defined as a physician licensed to practice psychiatry or who is certified to make examinations by the Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division.”
State v. Waters, 997 P.2d 279 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “ORS 426.120 requires that the examiners make their “reports in writing, under oath, to the court[.”
State v. K. J. B., 387 P.3d 467 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “110 (for purposes of a civil commitment hearing, “[t] he judge shall appoint one qualified examiner”); ORS 426.120 (examination requirements). Wooten opined that appellant was a danger to himself, a danger to others, and unable to provide for his basic needs and not receiving…”
State v. D. L. C., 343 Or. App. 429 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “meline of their preparation for the examina- tion; (2) it is not apparent on the record whether counsel was present at the examinations; (3) because there is evidence in the record that the examiners had phone calls with appel- lant prior to the hearing, it is not apparent on…”
State v. C. T. (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “Third, appellant argues that it is reasonable to infer that the examiner did not begin the examination pro- cess prior to the hearing as required by ORS 426.120, see ORS 426.120(1)(b) (requiring the examiner to “[i]nitiate the examination process prior to the hearing”), and that…”
State v. D. L. C., 343 Or. App. 429 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “meline of their preparation for the examina- tion; (2) it is not apparent on the record whether counsel was present at the examinations; (3) because there is evidence in the record that the examiners had phone calls with appel- lant prior to the hearing, it is not apparent on…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.120(1) — 1 case
State v. Hitt, 41 P.3d 434 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Nor *566 were the examiners’ reports, which were included in the record at the original commitment proceeding, see ORS 426.120(1) (relating to admission of examiners’ reports), admitted as exhibits in this proceeding.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.120(1)(b) — 6 cases
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Third, appellant argues that it is reasonable to infer that the examiner did not begin the examination pro- cess prior to the hearing as required by ORS 426.120, see ORS 426.120(1)(b) (requiring the examiner to “[i]nitiate the examination process prior to the hearing”), and that…”
State v. J. K., 564 P.3d 940 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Cite as 337 Or App 629 (2025) 637 Fourth, appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to enforce the terms of ORS 426.120(1)(b), which requires the examiner to “initiate the examination process prior to the hearing.”
State v. K. G., 544 P.3d 403 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “ORS 426.120. The civil commitment investigator, on the other hand, may or may not testify at the hearing, but the investiga- tor’s written report must be provided to the court in advance of the hearing.”
State v. D. L. C., 343 Or. App. 429 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “meline of their preparation for the examina- tion; (2) it is not apparent on the record whether counsel was present at the examinations; (3) because there is evidence in the record that the examiners had phone calls with appel- lant prior to the hearing, it is not apparent on…”
State v. D. L. C., 343 Or. App. 429 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “meline of their preparation for the examina- tion; (2) it is not apparent on the record whether counsel was present at the examinations; (3) because there is evidence in the record that the examiners had phone calls with appel- lant prior to the hearing, it is not apparent on…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.120(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. T. C., 536 P.3d 591 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Had appellant brought this error to the trial court’s attention, the error could easily have been avoided.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.120(1)(d) — 1 case
State v. K. G., 544 P.3d 403 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “ORS 426.120. The civil commitment investigator, on the other hand, may or may not testify at the hearing, but the investiga- tor’s written report must be provided to the court in advance of the hearing.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.120(2)(a) — 6 cases
State v. C. T., 553 P.3d 1070 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Third, appellant argues that it is reasonable to infer that the examiner did not begin the examination pro- cess prior to the hearing as required by ORS 426.120, see ORS 426.120(1)(b) (requiring the examiner to “[i]nitiate the examination process prior to the hearing”), and that…”
State v. J. K., 564 P.3d 940 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Cite as 337 Or App 629 (2025) 637 Fourth, appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to enforce the terms of ORS 426.120(1)(b), which requires the examiner to “initiate the examination process prior to the hearing.”
State v. C. T. (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Third, appellant argues that it is reasonable to infer that the examiner did not begin the examination pro- cess prior to the hearing as required by ORS 426.120, see ORS 426.120(1)(b) (requiring the examiner to “[i]nitiate the examination process prior to the hearing”), and that…”
State v. N. R., 333 Or. App. 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. L. W., 333 Or. App. 633 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.