providing medical treatment to students and referred to these guides as “their bibles or manuals.” She stated that they were also provided with an emergency procedure book and a checklist for when they should call an ambulance or parent. Thus, the evidence certainly cannot be deemed to have established as an undisputed fact that Aumua had complete discretion in her treatment of students. Respondents did not present any evidence at the evidentiary hearing regarding what treatment Aumua did provide to Sabrina, and the treatment that was or was not provided by Aumua was certainly not pleaded as an undisputed fact. In short, Respondents simply did not establish through undisputed facts that Aumua was entitled to official immunity and judgment as a matter of law. See Rush, 212 S.W.3d at 161 (<HOLDING>); Richardson, 293 S.W.3d at 139 (reversing
holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity holding nurses were not entitled to official immunity where it was alleged that they failed to follow orders for a patients care given to them by a doctor holding that because the mother did not appeal the issue of whether she was entitled to courtappointed counsel in a chins proceeding until following termination proceedings she had waived the issue holding that defendants were entitled to official immunity and not addressing the merits holding nurse was not entitled to official immunity where the petition alleged that she acted negligently in failing to follow doctors orders and her actions in following or not following those orders were ministerial