[334]*334GRABER, J.
A trial court committed petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) in 1985. At a hearing before the PSRB in November 1993, petitioner sought discharge or conditional release. The PSRB concluded that petitioner was affected by a mental disease or defect and that he presented a substantial danger to others. Based on those conclusions, the PSRB denied petitioner’s request for discharge. Additionally, the PSRB denied petitioner’s request for conditional release on the basis that the necessary treatment and supervision were not available. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order without opinion. Mueller v. PSRB, 134 Or App 671, 896 P2d 18 (1995). We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, vacate the PSRB’s order, and remand the case to the PSRB for reconsideration.
Petitioner, now 30 years old, has spent most of the years since he was 10 in state hospitals and institutions. His current confinement resulted from acts that he committed in 1984, when he was 18 years old. Petitioner broke into a neighbor’s house, stole some record albums, and vandalized the premises. In January 1985, a trial court found petitioner guilty except for insanity of first-degree burglary. Placing petitioner under the PSRB’s jurisdiction for a period not to exceed 20 years, the court conditionally released petitioner in February 1985. In making its decision, the court relied, in part, on a psychiatrist’s report based on an evaluation of petitioner performed at the jail in December 1984.1 The psychiatrist diagnosed petitioner as suffering from “[s]chizo-affective disorder, meaning that he has mood swings and also has a thought disorder,” on Axis I; “[b]orderline personality disorder, meaning that he lives in a state of considerable emotional instability,” on Axis II; and “[c]erebral palsy which is longstanding and manifested by spasticity of his arms and legs,” on Axis III.2
[335]*335The PSRB revoked petitioner’s conditional release on July 23, 1985, after petitioner tried to strangle his 16-year-old brother. Petitioner was committed to Oregon State Hospital (OSH), where he was diagnosed on July 24,1985, as suffering from childhood onset pervasive developmental disorder, residual, on Axis I; borderline personality disorder, on Axis II; and cerebral palsy, on Axis III.
A physician noted in 1988 that “the most suitable diagnoses for [petitioner] remain unclear” and that petitioner has been given a variety of possible diagnoses over the years. In 1989, an OSH physician diagnosed petitioner as suffering from an organic personality disorder, on Axis I; personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with borderline and antisocial traits, on Axis II; and speech impediment, on Axis III. Similar diagnoses have been repeated throughout the remainder of petitioner’s confinement, except that the subsequent Axis III diagnosis has been cerebral palsy.
At the PSRB hearing in November 1993, petitioner asked to be discharged or conditionally released or, in the alternative, to be evaluated by a community mental health agency.3 The hearing was held pursuant to ORS 161.341(4),4 and the state had the burden of proving that petitioner should remain under the PSRB’s jurisdiction. ORS 161.341(5). Petitioner and Dr. Jobe, his treating physician since 1990, were the only witnesses at that hearing. In his [336]*336last progress note update, dated November 18, 1993, Jobe diagnosed petitioner as having an organic personality disorder, on Axis I; personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with borderline and antisocial traits, on Axis II; and cerebral palsy, on Axis III.
Jobe testified that he preferred the diagnosis of “organic personality disorder” over the diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder that initially was assigned to petitioner. He explained that the organic etiology of the organic personality disorder is cerebral palsy at birth. Jobe further testified that petitioner’s organic personality disorder impairs his judgment and makes him impulsive and that, because of the organic etiology, petitioner “will always suffer these impairments.” Jobe testified that petitioner would present a substantial danger to others if he were discharged and that he would need a supervised, 24-hour facility if he were released conditionally. Petitioner testified briefly about his janitorial job and promised to obey the rules if he were released conditionally.
In an order dated December 1,1993, the PSRB made the following findings of fact:
“2. [Petitioner] is affected by a mental disease or defect as demonstrated by the underlying facts shown by the evidence including the testimony of David Jobe, M.D. at the hearing as well as information contained in [particular exhibits].
“3. [Petitioner], without adequate supervision and treatment, would continue to present a substantial danger to others as demonstrated by the underlying facts shown by the evidence including the testimony of David Jobe, M.D., at the hearing as well as the information contained in [particular exhibits].
>{: * * *
“5. [Petitioner] could be adequately controlled and treated in the community if he were conditionally released. This finding is based upon the testimony of David Jobe,
[337]*337M.D. at the hearing as well as the information contained in [an exhibit]
The PSRB concluded as a matter of law that:
“1. [Petitioner], being affected by a mental disease or defect which, when active, renders him a substantial danger to others, is under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board.
“2. [Petitioner] is a proper subject for conditional release, however, the supervision and treatment necessary are not currently available in the community; therefore, it would not be in the best interest of justice and the protection of society to release him at this time.”
The PSRB retained jurisdiction over petitioner pursuant to ORS 161.346(1) and ordered that a community mental health agency designated by OSH staff evaluate him for possible conditional release placement in an appropriate program.
As noted, petitioner appealed the order to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed without a written opinion. We allowed petitioner’s petition for review.
Petitioner argues that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the PSRB’s finding that he suffers from a mental disease or defect. We address his argument in two parts. First, because petitioner was diagnosed with an organic personality disorder at the time of his PSRB hearing, we address whether that condition constitutes a mental disease or defect. Second, we discuss whether the record contains substantial evidence to support a finding that petitioner has an organic personality disorder.
The legislature has not defined the term “mental disease or defect” directly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[334]*334GRABER, J.
A trial court committed petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) in 1985. At a hearing before the PSRB in November 1993, petitioner sought discharge or conditional release. The PSRB concluded that petitioner was affected by a mental disease or defect and that he presented a substantial danger to others. Based on those conclusions, the PSRB denied petitioner’s request for discharge. Additionally, the PSRB denied petitioner’s request for conditional release on the basis that the necessary treatment and supervision were not available. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order without opinion. Mueller v. PSRB, 134 Or App 671, 896 P2d 18 (1995). We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, vacate the PSRB’s order, and remand the case to the PSRB for reconsideration.
Petitioner, now 30 years old, has spent most of the years since he was 10 in state hospitals and institutions. His current confinement resulted from acts that he committed in 1984, when he was 18 years old. Petitioner broke into a neighbor’s house, stole some record albums, and vandalized the premises. In January 1985, a trial court found petitioner guilty except for insanity of first-degree burglary. Placing petitioner under the PSRB’s jurisdiction for a period not to exceed 20 years, the court conditionally released petitioner in February 1985. In making its decision, the court relied, in part, on a psychiatrist’s report based on an evaluation of petitioner performed at the jail in December 1984.1 The psychiatrist diagnosed petitioner as suffering from “[s]chizo-affective disorder, meaning that he has mood swings and also has a thought disorder,” on Axis I; “[b]orderline personality disorder, meaning that he lives in a state of considerable emotional instability,” on Axis II; and “[c]erebral palsy which is longstanding and manifested by spasticity of his arms and legs,” on Axis III.2
[335]*335The PSRB revoked petitioner’s conditional release on July 23, 1985, after petitioner tried to strangle his 16-year-old brother. Petitioner was committed to Oregon State Hospital (OSH), where he was diagnosed on July 24,1985, as suffering from childhood onset pervasive developmental disorder, residual, on Axis I; borderline personality disorder, on Axis II; and cerebral palsy, on Axis III.
A physician noted in 1988 that “the most suitable diagnoses for [petitioner] remain unclear” and that petitioner has been given a variety of possible diagnoses over the years. In 1989, an OSH physician diagnosed petitioner as suffering from an organic personality disorder, on Axis I; personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with borderline and antisocial traits, on Axis II; and speech impediment, on Axis III. Similar diagnoses have been repeated throughout the remainder of petitioner’s confinement, except that the subsequent Axis III diagnosis has been cerebral palsy.
At the PSRB hearing in November 1993, petitioner asked to be discharged or conditionally released or, in the alternative, to be evaluated by a community mental health agency.3 The hearing was held pursuant to ORS 161.341(4),4 and the state had the burden of proving that petitioner should remain under the PSRB’s jurisdiction. ORS 161.341(5). Petitioner and Dr. Jobe, his treating physician since 1990, were the only witnesses at that hearing. In his [336]*336last progress note update, dated November 18, 1993, Jobe diagnosed petitioner as having an organic personality disorder, on Axis I; personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with borderline and antisocial traits, on Axis II; and cerebral palsy, on Axis III.
Jobe testified that he preferred the diagnosis of “organic personality disorder” over the diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder that initially was assigned to petitioner. He explained that the organic etiology of the organic personality disorder is cerebral palsy at birth. Jobe further testified that petitioner’s organic personality disorder impairs his judgment and makes him impulsive and that, because of the organic etiology, petitioner “will always suffer these impairments.” Jobe testified that petitioner would present a substantial danger to others if he were discharged and that he would need a supervised, 24-hour facility if he were released conditionally. Petitioner testified briefly about his janitorial job and promised to obey the rules if he were released conditionally.
In an order dated December 1,1993, the PSRB made the following findings of fact:
“2. [Petitioner] is affected by a mental disease or defect as demonstrated by the underlying facts shown by the evidence including the testimony of David Jobe, M.D. at the hearing as well as information contained in [particular exhibits].
“3. [Petitioner], without adequate supervision and treatment, would continue to present a substantial danger to others as demonstrated by the underlying facts shown by the evidence including the testimony of David Jobe, M.D., at the hearing as well as the information contained in [particular exhibits].
>{: * * *
“5. [Petitioner] could be adequately controlled and treated in the community if he were conditionally released. This finding is based upon the testimony of David Jobe,
[337]*337M.D. at the hearing as well as the information contained in [an exhibit]
The PSRB concluded as a matter of law that:
“1. [Petitioner], being affected by a mental disease or defect which, when active, renders him a substantial danger to others, is under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board.
“2. [Petitioner] is a proper subject for conditional release, however, the supervision and treatment necessary are not currently available in the community; therefore, it would not be in the best interest of justice and the protection of society to release him at this time.”
The PSRB retained jurisdiction over petitioner pursuant to ORS 161.346(1) and ordered that a community mental health agency designated by OSH staff evaluate him for possible conditional release placement in an appropriate program.
As noted, petitioner appealed the order to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed without a written opinion. We allowed petitioner’s petition for review.
Petitioner argues that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the PSRB’s finding that he suffers from a mental disease or defect. We address his argument in two parts. First, because petitioner was diagnosed with an organic personality disorder at the time of his PSRB hearing, we address whether that condition constitutes a mental disease or defect. Second, we discuss whether the record contains substantial evidence to support a finding that petitioner has an organic personality disorder.
The legislature has not defined the term “mental disease or defect” directly. However, ORS 161.295(2), a statute relating to criminal responsibility, provides, in part:
“[T]he terms ‘mental disease or defect’ do not include * * * any abnormality constituting solely a personality disorder.”
See also ORS 161.295(1) (describing conditions for verdict of “guilty except for insanity’). The PSRB has adopted a rule that also excludes personality disorders from the definition of “mental disease or defect.” OAR 859-10-005(4) (1987) provided, in part:
[338]*338“ ‘Mental Disease or Defect’. The Board shall not discharge a person whose mental disease or defect may, with reasonable medical probability, occasionally become active, and when active, render the person a danger to others:
“(b) For offenses committed on or after January 1, 1984, the term ‘mental disease or defect’ does not include any abnormality constituting solely a personality disorder.”
In addition, the PSRB has adopted rules in which it defines the terms “mental disease” and “mental defect.” Before a 1995 amendment,6 OAR 859-10-005(5) and (6) (1987) defined those terms as follows:
“(5) ‘Mental Disease’. Mental disease is defined as any diagnosis of mental disorder which is a significant behavorial [sic] or psychological syndrome or pattern that is associated with distress or disability causing symptoms or impairment in at least one important area of an individual’s functioning and is defined in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association.
“(6) ‘Mental Defect’. Mental defect is defined as mental retardation, brain damage or other biological dysfunction that is associated with distress or disability casuing [sic] symptoms or impairment in at least one important area of an individual’s functioning and is defined in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association.” OAR 859-10-005 (1987).
Petitioner argues that his “organic personality disorder” falls under the statutory exclusion for “personality disorders” and that he therefore does not have a mental disease or defect within the meaning of the statute and rules. By contrast, the PSRB asserts that an “organic personality disorder” is distinct from a “personality disorder” that is excluded under ORS 161.295(2) and the applicable rules and that an organic personality disorder constitutes a mental disease or defect. Therefore,, the PSRB argues, it has jurisdiction over petitioner.
[339]*339In interpreting a statute, our task is to ascertain the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610, 859 P2d 1143 (1993). Similarly, when interpreting a rule, our task is to ascertain the intent of the agency that adopted it. Osborn v. PSRB, 325 Or 135, 145, 934 P2d 391 (1997). We begin by analyzing the text and context of ORS 161.295(2) and of OAR 859-10-005(4) (1987).
As noted, the text of ORS 161.295 does not define the term “personality disorder.” However, the term is defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3d ed 1980) (DSM-III). See Osborn, 325 Or at 147 (explaining why the DSM-III is the pertinent referent). The DSM-III was the standard reference work used by clinicians, researchers, and other practitioners in the psychiatric community at the time that the PSRB adopted OAR 859-10-005(5) and (6) (1987). The manual provides a “common language” in which clinicians and research investigators can communicate about mental disorders. DSM-III at 1. The DSM-III is published by the American Psychiatric Association. It compiles a list of mental disorders and sets forth the diagnostic criteria for each.
The legislature enacted ORS 161.295 in 1971, Or Laws 1971, ch 743, § 36, without an exclusion for personality disorders. The legislature amended that statute in 1983 to add the exclusion for “any abnormality constituting solely a personality disorder.” Or Laws 1983, ch 800, § 1. At that time, the DSM-III was the extant version of the DSM, having been published in 1980.
Because the phrase “personality disorder” is a term of art as to which the DSM-III was the definitive source, this court has referred to the DSM for guidance in cases involving individuals with mental diseases or defects. See, e.g., State v. Huntley, 302 Or 418, 431-36, 730 P2d 1234 (1986) (relying on the DSM-III to interpret the term “severe personality disorder” as used in a dangerous offender statute); McGarrah v. SAIF, 296 Or 145, 163 n 10, 675 P2d 159 (1983) (noting that many prominent psychotherapists compiled the manual, which comprehensively describes the manifestations of mental disorders). In particular, this court has stated that the [340]*340DSM-III “is helpful in defining a personality disorder.” Huntley, 302 Or at 434.
Moreover, OAR 859-10-005(5) and (6) (1987) incorporated the DSM-III by reference to define mental disease and mental defect. See Osborn, 325 Or at 147 (so holding). The PSRB’s rules thus contemplate that the DSM-III is the appropriate reference. We turn, then, to that document.
The DSM-III uses a multiaxial evaluation system for classifying disorders, and each axis conveys a different class of information. DSM-III at 23. Axis I consists of clinical syndromes and V Codes.7 Axis II consists of developmental disorders and personality disorders. All mental disorders fall within those two axes and are addressed in the DSM-III. Ibid. Axis III is for physical disorders and conditions.8
Three aspects of the DSM-III bear on the issue before us. First, the DSM-III does not use the diagnostic term “organic personality disorder.” Rather, it uses the diagnostic term “organic personality syndrome.”9 That being so, the premise of petitioner’s argument — that the legislature and the PSRB must have contemplated that this condition is merely a type of personality disorder because of the parallel wording — is absent.
Second, the DSM-III places “organic personality syndrome” on Axis I. Under the DSM-III, Axis I disorders are mental disorders or conditions other than personality disorders and specific developmental disorders. DSM-III at 23. By [341]*341contrast, “personality disorders” are classified on Axis II. Id. at 305. A number of specific types of personality disorders fall under the umbrella term “personality disorder.” See id. at 307 (listing subtypes of personality disorders). Organic personality syndrome is not included.10
Third, the definitions of “organic personality syndrome” and “personality disorder” show that the former is not “solely a personality disorder,” as ORS 161.295(2) requires for the exclusion to apply. (Emphasis added.)
The DSM-III states that the “essential feature” of organic personality syndrome is “a marked change in personality that is due to a specific organic factor but that is not due to any other Organic Brain Syndrome.”11 Id. at 118. The DSM-III lists the following diagnostic criteria for organic personality syndrome:
“A. A marked change in behavior or personality involving at least one of the following:
“(1) emotional lability, e.g., explosive temper outbursts, sudden crying
“(2) impairment in impulse control, e.g., poor social judgment, sexual indiscretions, shoplifting
“(3) marked apathy and indifference, e.g., no interest in usual hobbies
“(4) suspiciousness or paranoid ideation
“B. No clouding of consciousness, as in Delirium; no significant loss of intellectual abilities, as in Dementia; no predominant disturbance of mood, as in Organic Affective Syndrome; no predominant delusions or hallucinations, as in Organic Delusional Syndrome or Organic Hallucinosis.
[342]*342“C. Evidence, from the history, physical examination, or laboratory tests, of a specific organic factor that is judged to be etiologically related to the disturbance.
“D. This diagnosis is not given to a child or adolescent if the clinical picture is limited to the features that characterize Attention Deficit Disorder * * Id. at 119-20.
By contrast, with respect to personality disorders, the DSM-III explains:
“Personality traits are enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself, and are exhibited in a wide range of important social and personal contexts. It is only when personality traits are inflexible and maladaptive and cause either significant impairment in social or occupational functioning or subjective distress that they constitute Personality Disorders.”Id. at 305 (emphasis in original).
Thus, personality disorders are not characterized by an organic etiology as is organic personality syndrome. Neither is a personality disorder characterized by a “marked change in behavior or personality’; rather, it is characterized by “enduring patterns” that are “inflexible and maladaptive. at 119, 305 (emphasis added).
In summary, “personality disorders” and “organic personality syndrome” are two different and distinct types of mental disorders within the meaning of the DSM-III, which the applicable rule incorporates by reference. The two are placed on different axes, and each has a different origin and different manifestations. Based on our analysis of the text and context of ORS 161.295(2) and of OAR 859-10-005(4) (1987), we conclude that an “organic personality syndrome” does not constitute “solely a personality disorder.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, an organic personality syndrome is a mental disease or defect within the meaning of ORS 161.295(2) and OAR 859-10-005(4) (1987).
Because of the foregoing, we reject petitioner’s argument that the PSRB’s jurisdiction over him is inconsistent with Martin v. PSRB, 312 Or 157, 818 P2d 1264 (1991). In that case, this court stated that the PSRB does not have jurisdiction over an individual who suffers “from a personality [343]*343disorder accompanied by a past or future possibility of decompensation to mental disease or defect.” 312 Or at 165-66 (emphasis in original). The evidence here is that petitioner currently suffers from organic personality syndrome, a separate Axis I condition, in addition to a personality disorder. Thus, the holding in Martin is not applicable to the case now before us.
We next are called on to determine whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the PSRB’s finding that petitioner suffers from a mental disease or defect. “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” ORS 183.482(8)(c).
Because we have concluded that organic personality syndrome is a mental disease or defect, the question now is whether the record supports a finding that petitioner suffers from that mental disease or defect. The record consists of the testimony at petitioner’s PSRB hearing as well as 81 exhibits, including psychological evaluations, case summaries, progress note updates, and other reports by OSH staff.
Based on that evidence, the PSRB found that petitioner suffers from an organic personality disorder. However, in doing so, the PSRB appears to have relied on the DSM-III-R, a later version published in 1987, rather than on the DSM-III. Although the PSRB did not specifically refer to the DSM-III-R in its order, we nevertheless draw that conclusion, because every exhibit that contained a diagnosis between October 1989 and the November 1993 hearing had assigned the code 301.90 to petitioner’s Axis II personality disorder. That code, which indicates a “personality disorder, not otherwise specified,” does not exist in the DSM-III but does exist in the DSM-III-R. Because the DSM-III is the edition that should have been applied and because its use might have affected the outcome, we remand the case to the PSRB for reconsideration to determine whether petitioner meets the diagnostic criteria for organic personality syndrome that are set forth in the DSM-III.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The order of the Psychiatric Security Review Board is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for reconsideration.
5 Exhibits to which the PSRB’s order refers diagnose petitioner with an “organic personality disorder,” among other things.