Bean v. Oregon Health Authority

Under OAR 309-114-0010(1)(b)(C), a state institution may administer that medication to a patient without the patient’s informed consent for “good cause” by demonstrating the three factors relevant under OAR 309-114-0020(1)(a)-(c).

The petitioner sought judicial review and reversal of a final order where an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that the Oregon Health Authority and Oregon State Hospital (collectively state hospital) could administer antipsychotic medication to the petitioner without his informed consent, arguing that the ALJ erred in finding the state hospital had properly followed the requirements of OAR 309-114-0020(1)(a)-(c). Under OAR 309-114-0010(1)(b)(C), a state institution may administer that medication to a patient without the patient’s informed consent for “good cause” by demonstrating the three factors relevant under OAR 309-114-0020(1)(a)-(c). The Court found that the state hospital had properly followed the relevant regulations. First, the Court reasoned that OAR 309-114-0020(1)(a) was met, as the independent examining physician made two attempts to meet with the petitioner. Second, the Court found that the state hospital adhered to OAR 309-114-0020(1)(b) because the petitioner had a valid diagnosis of schizophrenia. Finally, the Court found that the hospital complied with OAR 309-114-0020(1)(c), as the medication was deemed the most appropriate treatment. The Court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings and affirmed the order.