With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Salcedo had alleged that her loss was proximately caused by the negligence of the emergency room employees in using tangible personal property and thus the hospital had waived sovereign immunity. Id. at 32-33. Other courts have used the reasoning in Salcedo to find waiver of immunity under section 101.021(2). See Robinson v. Cent. Tex. MHMR Ctr., 780 S.W.2d 169, 170-71 (Tex.1989) (applying Salcedo in determining that plaintiff stated cause of action waiving immunity by alleging that MHMR’s failure to provide life preserver to patient known to suffer epileptic seizures that caused him to lose consciousness led to patient drowning at lake while under MHMR’s care); Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch Hosp. at Galveston v. Hardy, 2 S.W.3d 607, 609-10 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Tejada v. Rowe, 207 S.W.3d 920, 925

A: holding in a medicalmalpractice case that defendant hospital and physicians failure to sufficiently monitor a suicidal patient who slipped out of restraints left the hospital and committed suicide the next day was not the proximate cause of the patients death as a matter of law
B: holding that hospital had waived immunity where wrongful death plaintiff asserted that hospital staff failed to properly oversee cardiac monitor and concluding that use of cardiac monitor like ekg in salcedo directly affected and impacted person whose heart condition was being monitored
C: holding that a hospital can conspire with members of its medical staff
D: holding that a company providing administrative purchasing and financial services to a hospital was not a hospital and thus could not be held directly liable under emtala
B.