in which “an integral safety component is entirely lacking rather than merely inadequate”). King’s allegations, however, contain insufficient facts to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction or to affirmatively demonstrate incurable jurisdictional defects. Regardless of how liberally one interprets her pleadings, it is impossible to tell whether King contends that she fell and was injured because M.D. Anderson’s staff placed her as part of her treatment in a hospital bed lacking an integral safety component, see Overton, or whether she contends she was injured because M.D. Anderson personnel were negligent in moving or positioning her. See Salinas v. City of Brownsville, No. 13-08-00146-CV, 2010 WL 672885, at *5 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Feb. 25, 2010, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). She therefore is entitled to the opportunity
holding that the plaintiff had placed her medical condition in controversy by alleging that she had suffered severe mental or emotional distress holding individual standing not available where inter alia there is no claim that plaintiff sustained a loss disproportionate to that sustained by the corporation holding that allegations that injuries were caused by misuse of ekg machine did not fall within waiver provisions of ttca because plaintiff had not made affirmative allegation that ekg machine was incorrectly used or that its results were erroneous and reasoning that misuse of information produced by ekg machine caused injuries rather than device itself holding no waiver of immunity for injuries sustained when the plaintiff fell from a washing machine on which emergency medical technicians had placed her for evaluation holding first that injuries sustained during contact sports were foreseeable then deciding that public policy insulated the defendant from liability for those injuries