In Conservatorship of Benvenuto (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 1030, a doctor testified that Benvenuto suffered from schizophrenia, which was in partial remission because Benvenuto was taking antipsychotic medication. (Conservatorship of Benvenuto, supra, 134 Cal.App.3d at p. 1033.) The doctor further testified that "because of the medication, Benvenuto presently had the ability to provide for his food, shelter, and clothing needs," but "if Benvenuto went to live with his mother, as proposed, he would be likely to regress and become gravely disabled in a fairly short period of time." (Ibid.) The Court concluded that the doctor's testimony did not establish present grave disability, reasoning as follows: "The circumstances here mirror those in the Murphy case. In Murphy the conservatee was not presently gravely disabled but medical witnesses thought he would likely soon become so because of his propensity to take the drug ethanol. Here Benvenuto is not presently gravely disabled but medical witnesses thought he would likely soon become so because of his propensity not to take the drug Prolixin. We discern no principled basis for distinction between these circumstances." (Id. at p. 1034.)