State v. L. M.

“In a continued-commitment proceeding of the kind involved here, the trial court’s task is to “determine whether the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment.” ORS 426.307. A ‘person with mental illness’ is defined to include a person who, because of a mental disorder, is “[u]nable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid serious physical harm in the near future, and is not receiving such care as is necessary to avoid such harm.” ORS 426.005(1)(f). "We recently explained that the term ‘serious physical harm,’ as used in that statute, “means bodily harm that is serious enough that a person who suffers that harm is unsafe in the absence of commitment, treatment, or other amelioration of the physical condition.” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or. App 231, 239, __ P3d __ (2019). The risk of serious physical harm need not be ‘imminent’ or “immediate”; all the statute requires is that the person be unable to provide for such basic needs that are necessary to avoid such harm ‘In the near future.’” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or. App 240, P3d __ (2019) (quoting ORS 426.005(1)(f)).

Appellant appealed a continued-commitment order decreeing that he continue to be hospitalized for an additional 180 days. Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that he could not meet his own basic-needs in seeking medical treatment. On appeal, Appellant challenged the trial court's determination to grant an order purely based on the speculation that Appellant would not seek medical treatment in the future. In response, the State argued that the record showed past instances where Appellant, due to his mental disorder, was unable to seek medical treatment when he needed it and thus it would happen again if released. “In a continued-commitment proceeding of the kind involved here, the trial court’s task is to “determine whether the person is still a person with mental illness and is in need of further treatment.” ORS 426.307. A ‘person with mental illness’ is defined to include a person who, because of a mental disorder, is “[u]nable to provide for basic personal needs that are necessary to avoid serious physical harm in the near future, and is not receiving such care as is necessary to avoid such harm.” ORS 426.005(1)(f). "We recently explained that the term ‘serious physical harm,’ as used in that statute, “means bodily harm that is serious enough that a person who suffers that harm is unsafe in the absence of commitment, treatment, or other amelioration of the physical condition.” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or. App 231, 239, __ P3d __ (2019). The risk of serious physical harm need not be ‘imminent’ or “immediate”; all the statute requires is that the person is unable to provide for such basic needs that are necessary to avoid such harm ‘In the near future.’” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or. App 240, P3d __ (2019) (quoting ORS 426.005(1)(f)). The Court found that although the record contained “alarming” incidents concerning Appellant's 2017 hospitalization, the record also failed to give specificity as to whether the events were isolated or frequent. Without more in the record, the Court agreed with Appellant that the lower court based its ruling on mere speculation. Therefore, the trial court erred in its continued commitment order.

Reversed.