Kenneth Hill v. Bruce W. Smith, M.D., Michelle Lastrape, P.A., and Kathryn Bell

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 19, 2009

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 19, 2009.

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-08-01016-CV

____________

 

KENNETH HILL, Appellant

 

V.

 

BRUCE W. SMITH, M.D., MICHELLE LASTRAPE, P.A., and KATHRYN BELL, Appellees

 

 

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 44666

 

 

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N


This appeal arises from appellant=s suit against appellees for the alleged denial of medical treatment.  On October 27, 2008, the trial judge signed an order, granting appellees= motion to dismiss.  In the order, the trial judge dismissed appellant=s claims against Kathryn Bell under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  The trial judge also dismissed appellant=s negligence claims against Bruce Smith and Michelle Lastrape for failure to comply with Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  Finally, the order stated that appellant=s section 1983 claims against Smith and Lastrape remained pending.  The clerk=s record was filed on December 30, 2008. 

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).

Because the October 27, 2008, order stated that parties and claims remained pending, this court issued a notice on January 30, 2009, to all parties of this court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before February 9, 2009.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

On February 10, 2009, this court received a document from appellant, mailed on February 9, 2009, entitled AMemorandum of Law in Support of Appeal.@  We construe this document to be appellant=s response to our dismissal letter.  In this memorandum, appellant claims this court has jurisdiction because Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides for an interlocutory appeal in medical liability cases.

Section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides for an appeal of interlocutory orders in medical liability cases in two situations:  (1) when the trial court denies relief sought by a motion under section 74.351(b), and (2) when the trial court grants relief sought by a motion under section 74.351(l).  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 51.014(a)(9)-(10) (Vernon 2008).  Neither situation is present in this case.  Appellant is not appealing the denial of a motion to dismiss under section 74.351(b) nor the grant of a motion challenging the adequacy of an expert report under section 74.351(l). 

We find that the order signed October 27, 2008, is not a final, appealable order.  Appellant=s response fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.


Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

 

PER CURIAM

 

 

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Guzman, and Sullivan.