Does the burden of proof under the LPS Act change back to the County on a motion for a rehearing?

8 In light of our holding, we do not address Scharles's contention, unsupported by legal precedent or in depth legal analysis, the denial of her request for an independent examination shifts the burden of proof back to the County on her motion for rehearing. Had the trial court properly exercised its discretion in ruling upon her request, no cause would exist for the relief Scharles requests regardless of its ruling. The LPS Act, as well as constitutional considerations, require the petitioner for establishment or reestablishment of a conservatorship bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the prospective conservatee is gravely disabled. (Conservatorship of Roulet (1979) 23 Cal.3d 219, 152 Cal.Rptr. 425, 590 P.2d 1.) However, at the optional rehearing, the conservatee carries the burden of producing evidence and proving by a preponderance of that evidence she is no longer gravely disabled. (Conservatorship of Everette M., supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 1572, 269 Cal.Rptr. 182; Baber v. Superior Court, supra, 113 Cal.App.3d at pp. 965-966, 170 Cal.Rptr. 353.) Scharles fails to show how the statutory process regarding the burden of proof is deficient.