a safety claim occurring in the lobby of a health care provider when health care services are not involved.” Smart, 423 S.W.3d at 467, Because Vargas’ personal injury claims arose in a context completely divorced from the rendition of health care, the TMLA did not apply to those claims. The trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss. Issue One is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 1 . The rule of the last antecedent states that "a qualifying phrase should be applied only to the portion of the sentence immediately preceding it.” Williams, 371 S.W.3d at 185 [Internal citation and quotation marks omitted], 2 . See Williams v. Riverside Gen. Hosp., Inc., No 01-13-00335-CV, 2014 WL 4259889, at *6 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 28, 2014, no pet. h.) (<HOLDING>). 3 .- We recognize that under a "professional
holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language holding the word individuals is not the equivalent of the dictionary acts use of the word persons holding that although the interpretation of the word safely in williams was judicial dicta the court was not free to completely disregard the language holding that the word interest is to be understood in its ordinary senseto hold that congress intended to use the word in the sense of a penalty is contrary to all rules of interpretation and invokes a special definition of the word interest that is unwarranted citations omitted holding that a states use of the word shall is mandatory language