State v. C. K.

"A person meets the 'basic needs' definition of a '[p]erson with a mental illness' . . . if the person is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs in a way that leaves the person at nonspeculative risk of 'serious physical harm’–meaning that the person's safe survival will be compromised–in the near future, even though that risk is not imminent." State v. M.A.E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019).

Appellant sought reversal of an order committing her to the Oregon Health Authority (“OHA”) for a period not to exceed 180 days, on grounds including that she suffered from a mental disorder that makes her unable to provide for her basic needs under ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B). The State conceded that the evidence is insufficient to support the commitment. "A person meets the 'basic needs' definition of a '[p]erson with a mental illness' . . . if the person is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs in a way that leaves the person at nonspeculative risk of 'serious physical harm’–meaning that the person's safe survival will be compromised–in the near future, even though that risk is not imminent." State v. M.A.E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019). The Court rejected the State's concession as it addressed the basic-needs basis for Appellant’s commitment and found the evidence presented was sufficient to support Appellant’s basic-needs commitment. The Court held that due to her mental disorder and her complicated medical condition, Appellant faced a nonspeculative risk of suffering from a serious, life-threatening infection in the near future if she were not hospitalized. Affirmed.