Opinion ID: 1630580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Cognitive Disorder

Text: G.H. argues that Lukin's diagnosis of a cognitive disorder was an insufficient basis upon which to conclude that he was a dangerous sex offender. Lukin explained that this diagnosis is really an acknowledgement that there are some impairments in [G.H.'s] cognition without being able to fully assess the etiology or the causal factors. Lukin regarded this as a relatively minor factor in assessing the risk of reoffense, but he testified that it would delimit or may constrain [G.H.'s] ability to gain the full amount of treatment that he might otherwise have if he did not have the condition. It is clear that Lukin did not base his opinion that G.H. was a dangerous sex offender solely or primarily on his cognitive disorder diagnosis, but merely considered the diagnosis with other factors. As such, the diagnosis was properly considered by the Board and the district court. The district court specifically noted the limitations on the significance of this diagnosis to which Lukin testified.