In Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005), a nursing home resident, Rubio, sued the nursing home after she was sexually assaulted by another resident. 185 S.W.3d at 845. Rubio alleged that the nursing home was negligent for failing to provide adequate supervision and nursing services and for failing to adequately supervise and monitor the resident to protect her from the offending resident. Id. The supreme court held that the claims against the nursing home were claims for breaches of the standard of care for a health care provider and were, thus, health care liability claims because the supervision of Ru-bio and the patient who assaulted her and the protection of Rubio were inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided to her. Id. at 849. Rubio, a patient in a nursing home facility, claimed the nursing home's negligence in failing to provide her with adequate supervision and nursing services proximately caused her injuries from a sexual assault by another patient. Diversicare, 185 S.W.3d at 845. The Texas Supreme Court concluded Rubio's claims were causes of action for departures from accepted standards of professional health care and safety. Id. In reaching its conclusion, the Diversicare court reasoned Rubio's causes of action were claims for breaches of the standard of care for a health care provider "because the supervision of Rubio and the patient who assaulted her and the protection of Rubio are inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided to Rubio." Id. at 849. In addition, the court in Diversicare concluded that "because the supervision of Rubio and the patient who assaulted her are inseparable from the accepted standards of safety applicable to the nursing home in this case," Rubio's claims fell under the safety element of the applicable statute, former article 4590i. Id. at 855. Therefore, that court concluded, the causes of action constituted health care liability claims under former article 4590i. Id. at 845. The Court addressed the question of whether a nursing-home patient's suit against the nursing home for her sexual assault by another patient was a health care liability claim. 185 S.W.3d at 845. Specifically, the plaintiff in Diversicare alleged that the nursing home was negligent in failing to provide sufficient staff and supervision to prevent the assault. Id. at 845. In holding that the plaintiff's claims were health care liability claims, the supreme court observed that the nursing home provided services to its patients that included supervision of daily activities, routine examina-tions, monitoring of patients' physical and mental condition, administering medication, and meeting other "fundamental care needs." Id. at 849. It concluded that rendition of these services, including the monitoring and protection of the patient, as well as training and staffing policies, were "integral components of Diversicare's rendition of health care services." Id. at 850. The supreme court recognized that "professional decisions on supervising or restraining patients at health care facilities require medical judgment." Id. at 852-53. In Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, a nursing home was sued for allegedly failing to provide adequate supervision and nursing services that proximately caused a resident's sexual assault by another resident. See Diversicare, 185 S.W.3d at 845. In concluding that the resident's claims were healthcare-liability claims governed by chapter 74, the supreme court noted that "the level and types of health care services provided vary with the needs and capabilities, both physical and mental, of the patients." Id. at 850. The supreme court further recognized that "the nature and intensity of care and treatment, including profes-sional supervision, monitoring, assessment, quantities and types of medication, and other medical treatment are judgments made by professionals trained and experienced in treating and caring for patients and the patient populations in their health care facilities." Id. The supreme court held that a nursing home resident's claims based on the nursing home's failure to protect her from sexual assault by another resident were health care liability claims subject to the predecessor stat-ute to chapter 74. Id. at 849. In reaching this conclusion, the court stated that the nursing home's supervision of the plaintiff and the resi-dent who assaulted her was "inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided." Id. After de-scribing the services expected of a nursing home, including the supervision and monitoring of its residents, the court stated: "This dispute between the parties is, at its core, over the appropriate standard of care owed to this nursing home resident; what services, supervision, and monitoring were necessary to satisfy the standard; and whether such specialized standards were breached." Id. at 850. The court also found it significant that testimony from an expert in the health care field would be necessary to determine the appropriate number, training, and certifications of medical professionals necessary to care for and protect patients from injury by other residents. See id. at 851. The Court examined negligence and contract claims against a nursing home for several sexual assaults of one patient by another. The court noted that a "nursing home provides services to its patients, often around the clock." Diversicare, 185 S.W.3d at 849. A nursing home's services include "meeting the fundamental care needs of the residents." Id. (citing TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. 242.001 (Vernon 2001)). The court noted that "these services are provided by professional staff including physicians, nurses, nurse aides, and orderlies who care for the residents." Id. at 849-50. The court, noting that lapses in the restraint of both residents was a factor in the claim, determined that the essence of the sexual assault claims involved lapses in professional judgment and treatment of both the claimant and the resident who assaulted her. Id. at 851. The court held that her causes of action constituted health care liability claims and stated that "the Legisla-ture's inclusion within the scope of the Medical Liability Insurance Improvement Act of claims based on breaches of accepted standards of 'safety' expands the scope of the statute beyond what it would be if it only covered medical and health care." The supreme court explained that Rubio's claim was a health care liability claim--as opposed to a general premises liability claim--not simply because the landowner was a health care provider, but because the su-pervision, monitoring, and protection of Rubio were inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided to her. Id. In addition, the court pointed out that "it is not within the common knowledge of the general public to deter-mine the ability of patients in weakened conditions to protect themselves, nor whether a potential target of an attack in a health care facility should be better protected and by what means." Id. at 851. Consequently, the court held that Rubio's causes of action were claims for breaches of the standards of care for a health care provider. Id. In Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005), a nursing home resident, Rubio, was allegedly sexually assaulted by another resident. Rubio's daughter brought suit on Rubio's behalf against Diversicare, the owner of the nursing home. The petition alleged multiple incidents of sexual assault occurred as a result of Diversicare's failure to adequately supervise and monitor Rubio to protect her from sexual abuse and assault from the other resident. Rubio asserted, among other things, negligent supervision and failure to provide nursing services, breach of an implied covenant to provide reasonably safe premises, and fraudulent inducement. Rubio contended her claims were not health care liability claims. The supreme court, however, concluded otherwise. In reaching its conclusion, the court examined the nature of health care services provided by nursing homes, noting that the "level and types of health care services provided vary with the needs and capabilities, both physical and mental, of the patients." Diversicare, 185 S.W.3d at 850. The nursing home provided for Rubio's fundamental needs, including assuming care and custody of her. The court concluded that the "supervision and monitoring of Rubio and other nursing home residents and nursing services provided to Rubio by Diversicare's staff were part of her health care." Id. Further, the court determined that expert testimony was necessary to Rubio's claims, explaining that it "is not within the common knowledge of the general public to determine the ability of patients in weakened conditions to protect themselves, nor whether a potential target in a healthcare facility should be better protected and by what means." Id. at 851.