(f) deals with a particular manner in which such evidence may be presented to the court. The State is required, regardless of the manner in which it presents its evidence, to present the evidence required under subsection (d) in order to make the evidence supporting commitment clear and convincing. See In re Bree-den, 4 S.W.3d 782, 788 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (reversing order of commitment when State presented testimony from three doctors who all expressed opinion that appellant would continue to suffer distress and deterioration of ability to function independently, but record lacked sufficient evidence of recent act or continuing pattern of behavior to confirm these assertions); see also State ex. rel. Mayberry, 685 S.W.2d 121, 124— 25 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1985, no writ) (<HOLDING>); accord State ex. rel. C.R.W., No.
holding under prior version of statute that medical certificates were insufficient to sustain order of commitment where certificates failed to provide sufficiently detailed factual basis for physicians conclusions holding prior version of wisconsin mental illness civil commitment statute constitutionally defective holding that a defendant must present sufficiently detailed and controverted factual allegations in order to receive an evidentiary hearing holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations holding restriction of questions during examination unduly restricts physicians ability to reach medical conclusions