572 December 10, 2025 No. 1065 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of T. L., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. T. L., Appellant.

Clackamas County Circuit Court 23CC02939; A181426 Cody M. Weston, Judge.

Submitted October 04, 2024.

Liza Langford filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Erica L. Herb, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and Pagán, Judge.

PAGÁN, J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 572 (2025) 573 PAGÁN, J.

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. In two assignments of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred because (1) the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that appellant met the “expanded criteria” for civil commitment as set forth by ORS 42.005(1)(f)(C); and, (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State’s witnesses to appear remotely, and by doing so, vio- lated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural Background Appellant has multiple mental health diagnoses coupled with a history of hospitalization due to the decom- pensation of his schizoaffective disorder. In the days and weeks prior to his hospitalization on May 11, 2023, appel- lant suffered a consistent mental health decline.

In one instance, on May 2, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker with the Crisis Intervention Team for Clackamas County, who had at the time known appellant for at least seven years, observed that conversations with appellant were incoherent when compared to previous interactions and believed appellant’s condition to be deteriorating.

Additionally, on May 10, a Behavioral Health Specialist and licensed Civil Commitment Investigator with the Canby Police Department, who likewise had known appellant for seven years, found appellant lying face down in the grass outside the offices for the Department of Human Services and observed appellant had disorganized and inco- herent speech as well as delusional thoughts.

At appellant’s commitment hearing, the psychiatrist tasked with appellant’s care at that time, who had known appellant for about a year and a half, testified that appel- lant’s symptoms were, as opposed to indicative of his pre- viously diagnosed schizoaffective disorder, more consistent with “malingering,” which he defined as “presenting” to the hospital “with the hope of not medical treatment, but 574 State v. T. L. secondary gain.” The psychiatrist opined that appellant’s secondary goals in this case were to secure “housing, restor- ing his cars from impound, as well as getting his money back from Clackamas County.” However, the above Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Behavioral Health Specialist, along with at least two additional mental health investiga- tors, testified or submitted written reports to the trial court record with consistent agreement among them that appel- lant’s condition and cognitive abilities had deteriorated in a way similar to his previous civil commitments.

Analysis Expanded Criteria Unless we exercise our discretion to review the question of the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, which we do not in this case, “for the expanded criteria determination, we view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s determination and review the evidence, as supple- mented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, to assess whether, when to viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to reach that same outcome.” State v. T. Z., 287 Or App 8, 9, 401 P3d 1265 (2017).

A trial court may commit a person under “expanded crite- ria” if the State proves, by clear and convincing evidence that the person (1) has a chronic mental illness as defined by ORS 426.495; (2) has been committed twice within the previous three years; (3) is exhibiting symptoms or behavior substantially similar to those prior to one or more of the pre- vious commitments; and (4) if left untreated will continue, to a reasonable medical probability, to physically or mentally deteriorate so that the person will become either a danger to oneself or others, or become unable to provide for their own basic needs. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(C).

While appellant contends that the testimony and evidence provided to the trial court by various mental health professionals should be given substantially less weight than the testimony of the psychiatrist treating appellant at the time of the commitment hearing, this argument is not well taken. We agree with the State and conclude that the “extensive experience” each of the other three mental health Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 572 (2025) 575 experts had with appellant, coupled with their unanimous conclusions that appellant fit the statutory requirements for expanded criteria, sufficed to support affirming the trial court’s finding that appellant be committed pursuant to ORS 426.005(1)(f)(C).

Remote Testimony In his second assignment of error, appellant con- tends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for in-person testimony. Concerningly, however, appellant attempts to recycle the arguments made in that denied motion by stating in his opening brief, “those arguments raised in [the underlying] motion are adopted in full as if set out herein. However, we have made clear that “a party must present its arguments in the opening brief” and that it is wholly inappropriate to “rely on incorporation by refer- ence,” even if doing so still complies with ORAP word limit requirements. JGB Enterprises, LLC v. OLCC, 325 Or App 326, 340, 529 P3d 262 (2023). In light of appellant failing to provide this Court with independent arguments in his open- ing brief, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the underlying motion on procedural grounds and decline to reach the mer- its of his claim.

Affirmed.