Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): evidence that appellant was sometimes delusional, spat on the floor, was angry and irritable toward the hospital staff, had disorganized thought patterns, exhibited rap id mood swings, and that, on the day after she was admitted, appellant wore wet clothes and attempted to disrobe in a common area of the hospital. We have previously held that an expert diagnosis of mental illness, standing alone, is not sufficient to confine a patient for treatment. K.T., 68 S.W.3d at 892; Mezick v. State, 920 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ). Additionally, evidence that merely reflects a patient’s mental illness and need for hospitalization is not sufficient to meet the State’s burden under section 574.034 of the Mental Health Code. See, e.g., K.T., 68 S.W.3d at 892 (<HOLDING>); D.J. v. State, 59 S.W.3d 352, 357 
 Holding statements: (A) holding evidence of patients delusion that she was in military and that mail carrier was responsible for her welfare not sufficient to meet required statutory burden (B) holding evidence of patients psychotic behavior delusions that she had undergone surgery by satellite and had electronics implanted in her not sufficient to meet required statutory burden (C) holding evidence of patients schizophrenia auditory hallucinations paranoia irritability and refusal to take medication not sufficient to meet required statutory burden (D) holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment (E) holding evidence of patients delusion that she was pregnant and had sutures in her vagina not sufficient to meet required statutory burden
Output (English): holding evidence of patients delusion that she was in military and that mail carrier was responsible for her welfare not sufficient to meet required statutory burden