
    Miguel HERNANDEZ, as Guardian of David P. Hernandez, an incapacitated individual; Inez Baltazar Hernandez, as Guardian of Armando Hernandez, Jr., an incapacitated individual; Michelle Crayton; Alicia Mata; Deann Torres, as Guardian of Christoper Norris, an incapacitated individual, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Adelaide HORN, Commissioner of the Department of Aging and Disability Services; Barry Waller, Assistant Commissioner Provider Services; Denise Geredine, State Schools; Iva Benson, Superintendent of the Corpus Christi State School, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 10-40384.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 29, 2011.
    David Wallace Holman, Esq.r The Holman Law Firm, P.C., Houston, TX, Robert C. Hilliard, Hilliard Munoz Guerra, L.L.P., Reynaldo Alejandro Pena, Esq., Law Offices of Reynaldo A. Pena, P.L.L.C., Kathryn Smyth Snapka, Esq., Trial Attorney, Snapka Law Firm, Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    
      Arthur Cleveland D’Andrea, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, Daniel Clark Perkins, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the appellants’ Motion for Panel Rehearing regarding their contention that inadequate staffing is not actionable under Youngberg v. Romeo, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that panel rehearing is DENIED as to all other issues on which appellants request reconsideration because, as we held in our original panel opinion, those issues have been waived.

We have reviewed the one issue on which we grant rehearing, and now hold that it does not affect our original holding. Appellants’ brief makes the narrow claim that “inadequate staffing” is an action which is properly brought against the State rather than against appellants. Even assuming this is true, it is no basis on which we should reverse the district court’s denial of appellants’ Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment. Appellees asserted, and the district court based its denial of that motion on, numerous alleged departures from professional standards, many of which do not involve staffing shortages. We do not decide how appellants may proceed on remand or whether they may make any broader “budgetary constraints” arguments than the narrow one made on appeal concerning the issue of inadequate staffing.

After reviewing the only issue on which we grant panel rehearing, we confirm our original affirmation of the district court’s denial of appellants’ Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment. 
      
      . 457 U.S. 307, 315-16, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982).
     