or furnished,” (2) “by any health care provider” (3) “for, to, or on behalf of a patient ” (4) “during the patient’s ” (a) “medical care,” (c) “treatment,” or (c) “confinement ” Id. § 74.001(a)(10) (emphasis added). Here, the Ramoses’ cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress for the mishandling of the remains of their unborn child, which actually occurred after Mrs. Ramos had already received properly administered medical treatment, is not one seeking to establish liability for a “medical” injury to either the unborn child or to Mrs. Ramos as patients. Their claim does not concern “treatment” or “lack of treatment.” The Ramoses are not seeking medical-liability damages for a “claimed departure from accepted standards” of “medical care” o .3d 658, 663-64 (Tex.2010) (<HOLDING>), and Diversicare General Partner, Inc. v.
holding that a general acute care hospital may not delegate its duty to provide physicians for emergency room care because the law imposes a duty on hospital to provide that health care holding that claim that hospital provided inadequate supervision leading to patients sexual assault by another patient constituted health care liability claim holding that claim against hospital regarding patients fall caused by defective footboard on hospital bed constituted health care liability claim holding that a patient who broke his leg in a fall while going from his hospital bed to the bathroom was not required to present expert testimony regarding the standard of care holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed