State v. P.D.

To satisfy the statutory standard under ORS 426.130 and ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B), “the state must prove two things: (1) that the individual’s inability to provide for their basic personal needs puts them at a ‘non-speculative risk of serious physical harm’ and (2) that the serious physical harm is likely to occur ‘in the near future.’” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or App 231, 240 (2019).

Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to the custody of Oregon Health Authority and assigns error claiming the State did not meet its burden of proof. At the time of the commitment hearing, appellant suffered from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type and multiple physical health concerns including severe lung disease, leg swelling, and cachexia. Appellant was not compliant with treatment. One month before the hearing, appellant experienced high levels of disorganization resulting in his inability to maintain a living environment or manage food intake. Appellant caused two floods in his apartment, and lost 19% of his body weight due to delusions about food and inability to shop for himself. Medical personnel testified they were concerned about malnourishment and his low body weight was an immediate concern because appellant already exhibited negative consequences from not getting enough nutrients. They described his cachexia as a “life-threatening condition.” To satisfy the statutory standard under ORS 426.130 and ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B), “the state must prove two things: (1) that the individual’s inability to provide for their basic personal needs puts them at a ‘non-speculative risk of serious physical harm’ and (2) that the serious physical harm is likely to occur ‘in the near future.’” State v. M.A.E., 299 Or App 231, 240 (2019). The Court reasoned that the appellant's mental disorder caused his delusions about food, resulting in rapid and significant weight loss. Because the appellant already suffered consequences because of these delusions, the Court found the risk of serious physical harm was non-speculative. The Court also determined that appellant's inability to sustain adequate nutrition, coupled with his lack of insight into his mental illness allowed for the inference that without intervention appellant was at risk for serious physical harm in the near future. Affirmed.