is virtually unrestricted, which is not what the Legislature intended. Id. at 588 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The court stated that while TDCJ did “use” various drugs and medical equipment in treating the inmate, it is not sufficient for waiver purposes “that some property is merely involved.... Using that property must have actually caused the injury.” Id. The court concluded that the property used on the inmate here might have furnished the condition that made his injury possible, but they did not hurt the inmate or make him worse in and of themselves. Id. Several intermediate courts of appeals have followed these more recent cases in limiting Salcedo and its progeny. See Anderson v. City of San Antonio, 120 S.W.3d 5, 6-9 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Kelso v. Gonzales Healthcare Sys., 136 S.W.3d
holding that obstetrician who consulted with patients treating physician by telephone was not in physicianpatient relationship and therefore owed no duty to patient obstetrician did no more than answer professional inquiry of colleague and did not contact examine or treat patient holding that a psychiatrist had no duty to detain a patient who killed himself and injured his wife because the patient was outside of the scope of the facilitys range of observation and control even when the psychiatrist agreed to treat the patient the patient had suicidal tendencies and the psychologist took the patient into custody but then later permitted him to leave holding that sanction of removal for nursing home attendant who was found to have hit patient suffering from dementia should be reduced to penalty of sixmonth suspension because act of hitting patient was isolated instance in which patient was aggressor holding that no physicianpatient relationship between doctor who gave informal opinion over telephone at request of treating physician and minor patient whose case was discussed and thus doctor did not owe duty of care to patient holding there was no waiver when emts performed two electrocardiogram tests determined patient did not need further care and patient later died of heart attack because patients death was caused by cardiac condition and emts negligence not by use of electrocardiogram machine