With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we hold the evidence is factually insufficient to meet the standard. Conclusion Although the medical testimony in this case might well have been valid, the Legislature has mandated that more than con-clusory opinions by experts is required before a person may be involuntarily com mitted for inpatient mental health services. Because the evidence adduced by the State at trial is insufficient to establish the elements of section 574.034 of the Health and Safety Code, we sustain C.E.’s second issue. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . Although C.E.’s commitment period expired on October 20, 2002, this appeal is not moot. See State v. Lodge, 608 S.W.2d 910, 911 (Tex.1980) (<HOLDING>). 2 . On appeal, C.E. also contends the trial

A: recognizing doctrine
B: holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation
C: holding doctrine of mootness does not apply to appeals from involuntary commitments
D: holding that doctrine does not violate due process
C.