In Conservatorship of Murphy (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 15, the public guardian sought to extend a conservatorship over an alcoholic, Murphy. (Id. at p. 17.) Two experts testified at the hearing. (Ibid.) The first "opined that Murphy was 'competent to manage his affairs'" but expressed the belief that if Murphy was allowed to do so, "he would once again indulge in alcohol, hence becoming 'greatly disabled and a threat to himself if not to others.'" (Ibid.) The second testified similarly, saying she did not find that Murphy, in his present state, was unable to manage his own affairs, but that if he were to return to consuming alcohol he would "'in all likelihood . . . again become greatly disabled.'" (Ibid.) This court concluded that "the evidence demonstrated Murphy was not" presently gravely disabled because "both expert witnesses testified Murphy was presently capable of managing his own affairs." (Id. at pp. 18-19.)