“health care.” Nor, contrary to the majority’s opinion, are they asserting a claim against appellants for their “departure from accepted standards” of “safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care.” See id. § 74.001(a)(13) (emphasis added). The Ramoses are not complaining about an “act or treatment performed or furnished, or that should have been performed or furnished, ... for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement.” See id. § 74.001(a)(10) (emphasis added). Thus, their cause of action for the mishandling of their unborn child’s remains is not “directly related” to the provision of health care to either the mother or the unborn child. Their cause of action simply does not fall within the Tex 010) (<HOLDING>), Marks v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, 319
holding that claim against nursing home regarding patients death from spider bite fell within the statutory definition of a health care liability claim holding that claim against hospital regarding patients fall caused by defective footboard on hospital bed constituted health care liability claim holding that claim against doctor for negligently advising water park regarding defibrillators constituted health care liability claim holding that claim that hospital provided inadequate supervision leading to patients sexual assault by another patient constituted health care liability claim holding claim that negligent supervision caused assault was health care liability claim because it was inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided