Between 2023 and 2025, the PSRB repeatedly amended and recodified its definitions of “danger” and how a qualifying mental disorder relates to present dangerousness. The practical effect is a broader standard that can allow continued PSRB jurisdiction even when non-qualifying factors are doing most of the work and the qualifying disorder is only incidental. (See the quoted 2025 language below.)
Ask ChatGPT to summarize this pageOn this page
Overview Timeline Before vs. After Practical Impact Official Rule Links FAQOverview
In Oregon’s GEI/PSRB system, continued jurisdiction is supposed to be grounded in present findings: a qualifying mental disorder and present substantial danger, with a real causal connection between the disorder and the danger. When that connection is diluted, PSRB jurisdiction can drift into “diagnosis + speculation,” rather than “current disorder-linked risk.”
The rule changes weakened “the required relationship between a qualifying mental disorder and present dangerousness,” and the revised standards were applied in ongoing PSRB proceedings (including 2025 hearings).
Timeline of key rule actions
2023: PSRB 1-2023 (OAR 859-010-0005)
Prior language defined dangerousness in terms of conduct placing others at risk of physical injury “because of the person’s qualifying mental disorder.”
2024: PSRB 1-2024 (OAR 859-010-0005 amended)
The 2024 amendments altered how dangerousness and the qualifying disorder are linked in the rule text, and were later described as diluting the nexus.
March 10, 2025: PSRB 1-2025 (temporary) recodifies into OAR 859-030-0010
The loosened-nexus standard was recodified rather than restored to the prior approach.
July 31, 2025: PSRB 2-2025 (permanent) retains the core standard
Subsequent 2025 amendments retained the same central “combine with another condition” structure.
Before vs. After (what actually changed)
Before (2023 framing)
Dangerousness tied to behavior risking physical injury because of the qualifying mental disorder.
This framing emphasizes a direct causal link: the qualifying disorder is not just present in the background, it is the meaningful driver of current dangerousness.
After (2025 text in OAR 859-030-0010)
The qualifying disorder can be one ingredient among others and “need not be sufficient on its own.”
This opens the door to continued jurisdiction where non-qualifying factors are the primary drivers, so long as the qualifying disorder can be described as “combining” in some way.
The older framing is closer to “the disorder is why you are dangerous now.” The newer framing can become “the disorder exists, and it mixes with other issues, so that’s enough.”
Practical impact
- More “speculation-weight” decisions. When the causal standard is loosened, decisions can lean on hypothetical future risk or administrative gaps rather than current disorder-linked evidence.
- Longer jurisdiction even after stabilization. If the qualifying disorder is well controlled, but other concerns exist (planning, supervision, uncertainty), the loosened standard can still justify continued PSRB control.
- Incentive drift. When “combine with another condition” becomes the default logic, it gets easier to treat the diagnosis as a permanent jurisdictional hook rather than a current clinical driver.
Civil commitment standards are supposed to be about present conditions, not simply a history label. When the nexus weakens, “present danger because of present disorder” can slide into “present custody because of past facts + future hypotheticals.”
Official rule links (Secretary of State / OAR)
These are the public rulemaking receipts and records referenced in the legal filings and addendum.
FAQ
1) Is this a “technicality,” or does it change outcomes?
Definitions drive outcomes. If the rule allows danger to be found even when the disorder is not sufficient on its own, it becomes easier to keep jurisdiction in cases where other factors are the main concern.
2) What is the “nexus” that people keep talking about?
It means the Board should be able to say, with current evidence, that the person is substantially dangerous to others because of a qualifying mental disorder, not merely that a disorder exists somewhere in the background.
3) Why mention “recodified” rules?
Recodification matters because it can preserve the same contested standard while changing the rule number or packaging, which can make accountability harder for the public to track across years.