Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 24, 2008.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-08-00094-CV
____________
TERRYL REBECTOR, Appellant
V.
ANGLETON DANBURY HOSPITAL and LAWRENCE W. ANDREWS, M.D., Appellees
On Appeal from the 412th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 42006
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
According to appellant=s notice of appeal, this is an attempted appeal from the granting of a motion for new trial after a default judgment and the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the new trial grant in a medical malpractice action. The default judgment was signed August 17, 2007. Appellees filed a timely motion for new trial on September 14, 2007. It is well-settled that an order granting a new trial is not appealable. See, e.g., Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam).
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed a response to the motion which fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. The cases cited in the response do not establish that the order granting the new trial, or the order denying reconsideration thereof, are appealable orders. This is clearly not an appeal taken after a medical malpractice plaintiff has failed to file an expert report and the defendant has been denied an order under Section 74. 351(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.[1] In addition, in granting the new trial, the court afforded appellant additional time to file the expert report required by section 74.351. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 74.351(c) (Vernon Supp. 2007). An appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 51.014(a)(9) (Vernon Supp. 2007). We need not address appellant=s arguments concerning the application of the Craddock test for setting aside a default judgement because we lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of appellant=s arguments. See Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939).
Appellees= motion is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 24, 2008.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Boyce.
[1] Section 51.014(a)(9) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code permits an interlocutory appeal to be taken from an order denying, in full or in part, a request for an order that:
(1) awards to the affected physician or health care provider reasonable attorney's fees and costs of court incurred by the physician or health care provider; and
(2) dismisses the claim with respect to the physician or health care provider, with prejudice to the refiling of the claim.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 74.351(b) (Vernon Supp. 2007).