S. Murthy Badiga, M.D. v. Maricruz Lopez

Summary

In this dissenting opinion, Justice Brister argues that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(9) plainly bars an interlocutory appeal from any order granting an extension to cure an expert-report problem, whether no report or a deficient report was timely served. The dissent would affirm the court of appeals’ dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and rejects the majority’s distinction between missing and deficient expert reports.

Holdings

1. The Court held that an interlocutory appeal may be taken when the trial court grants an extension to cure a missing expert report, notwithstanding the statutory language that an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension.
2. The dissent would hold that an order granting an extension is inseparable from the express or implied denial of dismissal, regardless of whether the orders are signed in the same instrument or at different times.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order granting an extension to cure a missing expert report under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(9).
2. Whether an order granting an extension and the accompanying denial, express or implied, of a motion to dismiss are inseparable for purposes of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.
3. Whether the court of appeals properly dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded