Mike Bismar, M.D. v. Dorothy A. Morehead, Vaughn R. Morehead, and James P. Morehead, III, Individually and as Heirs at Law of Gloria Morehead

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 21, 2008
Docket02-07-00360-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Mike Bismar, M.D. v. Dorothy A. Morehead, Vaughn R. Morehead, and James P. Morehead, III, Individually and as Heirs at Law of Gloria Morehead (Mike Bismar, M.D. v. Dorothy A. Morehead, Vaughn R. Morehead, and James P. Morehead, III, Individually and as Heirs at Law of Gloria Morehead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mike Bismar, M.D. v. Dorothy A. Morehead, Vaughn R. Morehead, and James P. Morehead, III, Individually and as Heirs at Law of Gloria Morehead, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-07-360-CV

DOROTHY A. MOREHEAD,                                                       APPELLANTS

VAUGHN R. MOREHEAD,

AND JAMES P. MOREHEAD,

III, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

HEIRS AT LAW OF GLORIA

MOREHEAD, DECEASED

V.

HISHAM BISMAR, M.D. APPELLEE

------------

FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION (footnote: 1)

Appellants Dorothy A. Morehead, Vaughn R. Morehead, and James P. Morehead, III, individually and as heirs at law of Gloria Morehead, deceased, filed this accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order granting Appellee Hisham Bismar’s motion to dismiss their medical malpractice suit.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

On January 14, 2008, we notified appellants by letter of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the order being appealed does not appear to be an appealable interlocutory order, and we indicated that their appeal could be dismissed unless they filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by January 24, 2008. (footnote: 2)  We have not received a response.

The order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss expressly provides that it is made pursuant to section 74.351(b) of the civil practice and remedies code. (footnote: 3)  While an interlocutory order granting a motion to dismiss under section 74.351(l) is appealable, (footnote: 4) an interlocutory order granting a motion to dismiss under section 74.351(b) is not. (footnote: 5)

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. (footnote: 6)

PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED:  February 21, 2008

FOOTNOTES

1:

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2:

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

3:

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351(b) (Vernon Supp. 2007).

4:

Id. § 51.014(a)(10) (Vernon Supp. 2007) .

5:

See id. § 51.014; Jain v. Stafford , 214 S.W.3d 94, 97 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. dism’d).

6:

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jain v. Stafford
214 S.W.3d 94 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mike Bismar, M.D. v. Dorothy A. Morehead, Vaughn R. Morehead, and James P. Morehead, III, Individually and as Heirs at Law of Gloria Morehead, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mike-bismar-md-v-dorothy-a-morehead-vaughn-r-moreh-texapp-2008.