Kamel and UTHSCH to determine whether his claims are an attempt to artfully plead around the requirements of the TTCA. See Arnold, 279 S.W.3d at 470. Just as in Arnold, Kamel has made no claim that the surgical instruments themselves were defective in any way or that they were used in a negligent manner. Rather, the crux of Kamel’s argument is that Dr. Wang made an erroneous medical judgment in determining that Kamel’s testicle needed to be removed. The fact that tangible personal property was used during the procedure conducted as a result of the allegedly erroneous judgment does not establish that the use of the surgical instruments itself was the proximate cause of Kamel’s injury, and, thus, these allegations do not fall within the limited waiver in section 101.021(2). See id. (<HOLDING>); see also Miller, 51 S.W.3d at 588
holding that a plea agreement with a waiver of direct appeal rights does not include a waiver of collateral remedies because the government could have included a waiver of collateral rights in the plea agreement and chose not to do so holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity holding that general medical malpractice claims do fall with waiver provision of ttca holding that errors in medical judgment do not provide waiver of immunity under ttca