Rushing fails to set forth when during the medical care he believes assessments should have been done and then, if such assessments had been performed, how these assessments would have changed the patient’s condition. Again, the inclusion of the Clinic in the articulation of the standard of care is not fatal because all of the claims against the Clinic are based on respondeat superior and therefore flow from the alleged breach of the standard of care by its agent or employees, in this case, the doctors. And although Dr. Self and Dr. Mercau are both mentioned in one part of the articulation of the standard of care, the standard of care is later ascribed to each of them separately in different paragraphs. See Foster v. Richardson, 303 S.W.3d 833, 843 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Romero v. Lieberman, 232 S.W.3d 385, 391-92
holding that doctors do not have to accept patients holding that a patients settlement of a prior action brought against him by doctors for payment of a bill did not bar medical malpractice action against doctors holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors holding report not insufficient merely because it contains some collective statements regarding actions that both doctors should have taken while they independently cared for richardson holding an employees actions in disregarding his doctors warnings were negligent