time for discovery. We therefore overrule M.D. Anderson’s second and third issues as they pertain to the alleged absence of evidence to establish waiver of immunity. IV. Conclusion We affirm the trial court’s denial of M.D. Anderson’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment; reverse its denial of the plea to the jurisdiction; dismiss King’s claims that her injuries were caused by any M.D. Anderson’s employee’s failure to act, exercise of medical judgment, or use or misuse of medication; and remand the case to give King the opportunity to plead sufficient facts to allow the trial court to determine whether King’s assertions concerning a hospital bed adequately allege that her injuries were caused by the use of tan oeder, 190 S.W.3d 102 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Arnold, 279 S.W.3d at 468-69 (holding
recognizing that immunity may be waived holding that negligent supervision is inseparable from the use of the motor vehicle holding that section 41  16 does not grant a waiver for claims of negligent supervision holding that immunity is not waived for injury or death caused by negligent supervision recognizing torts of negligent hiring supervision and retention