Legislature’s definition of a “health care liability claim.” The Ra-moses are not at all seeking to establish appellants’ medical liability for the negligent provision of “health care.” They are seeking mental anguish damages because someone, after Mrs. Ramos had received medical treatment, mixed up the remains of their unborn child with another person’s toe. Regardless of the plain language of the legislature’s definition of “health care liability claim,” appellants assert that the Ramoses have sued them to establish medical liability for a claimed departure from accepted standards of professional or administrative services directly related to health care. In support of their assertion, appellants rely upon Omaha Healthcare Center, L.L.C. v. Johnson, 344 S.W.3d 392, 394-95 (Tex.2011) (<HOLDING>), Yamada v. Friend, 335 S.W.3d 192, 196-98
holding that claim against nursing home regarding patients death from spider bite fell within the statutory definition of a health care liability claim holding that the medicaid statute as amended by the federal nursing home reform amendments did not create a private cause of action for nursing home residents against nursing homes holding claim that negligent supervision caused assault was health care liability claim because it was inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided holding that claim against hospital regarding patients fall caused by defective footboard on hospital bed constituted health care liability claim holding that nursing home patients did not have a property interest in receiving care at a particular facility