You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

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

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-07-00360-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 20, 2008; Texas; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Appellants Dorothy A. Morehead, Vaughn R. Morehead, and James P. Morehead, III, brought an accelerated appeal against Hisham Bismar, M.D., following the trial court's order that dismissed their medical malpractice suit. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the dismissal was not an appealable interlocutory order. The order was made under section 74.351(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which does not permit an appeal, unlike an order under section 74.351(l), which is appealable. The court had previously notified the appellants of this jurisdictional concern and requested a response, which was not received. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The ruling was delivered on February 21, 2008, by a panel including Chief Justice Cayce and Justices Livingston and Dauphinot.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appealability of Orders under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code

Application: The court highlighted the distinction between orders under section 74.351(b), which are not appealable, and those under section 74.351(l), which are appealable, impacting the appellants' ability to appeal the dismissal.

Reasoning: The order was made under section 74.351(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which does not permit an appeal, unlike an order under section 74.351(l), which is appealable.

Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction

Application: Due to the appellants' failure to respond to the court's notice regarding jurisdictional concerns, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasoning: The court had previously notified the appellants of this jurisdictional concern and requested a response, which was not received. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of Appeals in Medical Malpractice Cases

Application: The Court of Appeals determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the order dismissing the medical malpractice suit was not an appealable interlocutory order under the relevant statute.

Reasoning: The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the dismissal was not an appealable interlocutory order.