We conclude that, on these facts, a separate expert report addressing OGA’s conduct is not required under section 74.351 to support McCoy’s allegations. b. Alleged Liability for Gross Negligence Next, OGA contends that McCoy’s third amended petition attempts to hold it liable for gross negligence, citing the following language: “the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that conduct of ... [OGA] in this case constitutes ‘gross negligence.’ ” According to OGA, McCoy is alleging that OGA itself committed some conduct amounting to gross negligence, and that the allegation is broad enough to leave the door open for further allegations of direct liability against it. See Azle Manor, Inc. v. Vaden, No. 2-08-115-CV, 2008 WL 4831408, at *4 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Nov.6, 2008, no pet.) (mem.op.) (<HOLDING>). In Azle Manor, the expert report appel-lees
holding that allegations that entity among other things failed to act as an ordinary prudent person would have under the same or similar circumstances was broad enough to encompass a directliabili ty claim and leave the door open for further allegations of direct liability holding that because the allegations purportedly suppressed by the government were not material an evidentiary hearing further exploring the  allegations themselves and the governments knowledge of the allegations is unnecessary holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim holding that evidence of other allegations of torture was inadmissible in part because it was not similar to the allegations made by defendant holding plaintiffs must provide particularized allegations as to why demand would be futile to survive a motion to dismiss conclusory allegations are not enough