In In re MH 2007-001236, 220 Ariz. 160, 163, P 4, 204 P.3d 418, 421 (App. 2008) the physician testified that the patient refused to cooperate in an evaluation interview. As a result, at the hearing on the PCOT, the physician testified that when he prepared his affidavit "he could not give a professional opinion" but after a brief review of the patient's records earlier that morning he would "try" to do so. Id. On appeal, the parties apparently agreed that the petition and affidavits did not meet the statutory requirements. Id. at 166, P 19, 204 P.3d at 424. The Court therefore concluded that the physician's affidavit was insufficient because it did not provide a professional opinion, the physician did not explain treatment alternatives or the advantages or disadvantages of treatment to patient, and the physician stated he could not complete a comprehensive evaluation. Id. at 166-67, P 19, 204 P.3d at 424-425. Moreover, his affidavit opined that the patient suffered from polysubstance dependence, which is not a mental disorder under the statute. Id. at 168, P 23, 204 P.3d at 426. Thus, the crux of our decision was the physician's wholesale lack of compliance with the statutory requirements for preparation of his affidavit. Id. at P 26. The Court made no determination that the patient had willfully refused the examination. See id. at 167 n.10, P 22, 204 P.3d at 425 n.10. Instead, the Court cautioned that we did not mean to "imply that a patient can prevent the examinations and then claim the petitioner failed to meet its burden." Id.