Dr. Sotelo negligently failed to completely disclose the risks and hazards posed by the hydrocelec-tomy; • Dr. Wang negligently supervised and advised Dr. Sotelo as she performed the hydrocelectomy; • Dr. Sotelo failed to perform the medical treatment necessary; • Dr. Sotelo failed to “recognize and/or acknowledge her recognition of [Ka-mel’s] symptoms that resulted from her negligent use of personal tangible property during treatment; and • Dr. Sotelo failed to use acceptable practices to l f surgical instruments was the actual cause of his injury. Like the court in Arnold, we must focus on the true nature of the dispute that every use of medical equipment cannot constitute waiver because doctors almost always use medical equipment in treating patients); Bossley, 968 S.W.2d at 342-43 (<HOLDING>). We overrule Kamel’s first issue. C. Trial
holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury holding that use of tangible property must be proximate cause of injury and that property does not cause injury if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible holding that under missouri law the term property damage defined as physical injury to tangible property does not cover losses due to the insureds negligent performance of contract work where the defective work does not cause accidental injury to surrounding property