In In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, 181 Ariz. 290, 293, 889 P.2d 1088, 1091 (1995), the court rejected the argument that a mental health evaluator could also serve as an acquaintance witness. In so holding, the court stated that the statutory witness requirements are designed in part "to prevent . . . evaluators . . . from simply ratifying or 'rubber stamping' one another's findings" and that "the statute is tightly drawn to avoid situations . . . where the patient appears to have been committed primarily on the opinion and observations of one psychiatrist." Id. Moreover, "two physician evaluators must be called by one side or the other." Id.