Theresia Riggs v. Joseph Michael Perlman, M.D.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 26, 2014
• Docket: 01-13-00974-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Theresia Riggs v. Joseph Michael Perlman, M.D.

Appellate case number: 01-13-00974-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-25072

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

Appellant Theresia Riggs appeals from the trial court’s October 14, 2003 “Order of Dismissal with Prejudice,” which granted the motion to dismiss of appellee Joseph Michael Perlman, M.D. This order does not dispose of all parties and claims or purport to be a final judgment, and no order of severance appears in the record. Accordingly, this is an interlocutory order. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Id. Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if authorized by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). The Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order that denies a physician’s motion to dismiss based on a medical-malpractice plaintiff’s failure to serve an expert report within the statutory time frame. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(9) (West Supp. 2012); see also id. § 74.351 (West Supp. 2013). It also authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order that grants a motion challenging the adequacy of an expert report. See id. § 51.014(a)(10); see also id. § 74.351(l).

The order that Riggs challenges on appeal is one granting a physician-defendant’s motion to dismiss based on her failure to serve an expert report. As such, this interlocutory appeal is not authorized by statute. See id. § 51.014.

Accordingly, the Court orders Riggs to file a written response to this order, providing a detailed explanation, citing relevant portions of the record, statutes, rules, and case law to show that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). The response is due no later than April 2, 2014. The reply, if any, from the appellee is due no later than April 7, 2014.

If a meritorious response is not received by the deadline, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction without further notice.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale Acting individually

Date: March 26, 2014