that party’s agents or employees is sufficient .to implicate the • party under the vicarious theory. Gardner, v. U.S. Imaging, Inc., 274 S.W.3d 669, 671-72, (Tex. 2008) (per curiam); McCoy, 283 S.W.3d at 102-03. And, if any liability theory has been adequately covered, the entire case may proceed. Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts, 392 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.2013). An expert report is not required to name a hospital expressly or identify a standard of care breached by a hospital if the theory of liability against the hospital is based upon the actions of the hospital’s physicians. See Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Qi 370 S.W.3d 406, 413 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.); see also Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Dale, 188 S.W.3d 877, 879 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Because Nguyen filed and served on the
holding that agency reports ofgovernment investigations containing witness interviews were not admissible under public records exception because statements in reports were not based upon personal knowledge of government agent holding that a published hospital report was privileged because the reports were asked to be made and read only by the requesting party holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed holding that physicians as agents of the hospital are indistinguishable from the hospital for immunity purposes under the lgaa