Cited by

See In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

Mental Health No. MH2011-000914, (quoting Maricopa Cnty.

They are conclusory and do not, on their own, satisfy the requirement that the “physicians shall describe in detail” their findings “based on the physician’s observations of the patient and the physician’s study of information about the patient.” § 36-533(B); see In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 9 (App. 2012) (stating physicians must detail their observations to satisfy the clear and convincing evidentiary standard).

In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 7 (App. 2012).

Mental Health No. MH 2011-000914

See In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 6, n.5 (App. 2012) (citing In re MH2007-001236, ¶ 12, n.3 (App. 2008)).

No. MH-1140-6-93, see In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (holding patient cannot thwart examination and later claim State did not meet its burden).

2007-001236, 220 Ariz. at 166–67, ¶ 19 (explaining a doctor’s affidavit does not meet the statutory requirements where the doctor concedes he could not perform a full psychiatric evaluation and did not, in fact, examine the patient); see also In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (holding that a “hurried attempt to interview” a patient does not constitute an examination of the patient and renders the doctor’s affidavit deficient as a matter of law).

See In re MH2011-000914, ¶¶ 10–11 (App. 2012).

In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 7, see also In re MH2010-002348, ¶ 7

In re MH 2011-000914, ¶ 7, MH 2007–001236, 220 Ariz. at 165, ¶ 15, 204 P.3d at 423.

See In re MH2011-000914, MH 2007-001264, 189 P.3d at 1112.