Sherilyn Magee-Flick, Individually, as Personal Representative, as Heir to and on Behalf of All Beneficiaries to the Estate of Mabel Phillips v. THI of Texas at Longmeadow, LLC D/B/A Longmeadow Healthcare Center

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                      COURT OF APPEALS

                                       SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                   FORT WORTH

 

 

                                        NO. 2-08-048-CV

 

 

SHERILYN MAGEE-FLICK,                                                       APPELLANT

INDIVIDUALLY, AS

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE,

AS HEIR TO AND ON BEHALF

OF ALL BENEFICIARIES TO

THE ESTATE OF MABEL PHILLIPS

                                                                                                       

                                                   V.

 

THI OF TEXAS AT LONGMEADOW,                                            APPELLEE

LLC D/B/A LONGMEADOW

HEALTHCARE CENTER                                                                        

 

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

 

             FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

 

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

 

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

 

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


Appellant Sherilyn Magee-Flick, Individually, as Personal Representative, as Heir to and on Behalf of All Beneficiaries to The Estate of Mabel Phillips appeals from the trial court=s interlocutory order compelling binding arbitration.  On February 11, 2008, we sent Appellant a letter stating our concern that we may have no jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be a final appealable order or judgment, nor does it appear to be an appealable interlocutory order.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 51.014(a) (Vernon Supp. 2007) (listing appealable interlocutory orders), ' 171.098(a)(1) (allowing interlocutory appeals to be taken from orders denying an application to compel arbitration); Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (providing general rule that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment).  We indicated that this court would dismiss this appeal if we did not receive a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by February 21, 2008.  We received no response.

Accordingly, because the order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

 

PER CURIAM

 

PANEL D:   WALKER; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, JJ.

 

DELIVERED: March 13, 2008



[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.