DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 8, 2020 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00840-CV RICK MILTEER, Appellant V. PARK VENTURE ENDOSCOPY CENTER L.L.C. ASSUMED NAME PRESTON CROSSING ENDOSC OPY CENTER; ANNA CHRISTEN SCOGGIN, R.N.; DIGESTIVE HEALTH ASSOCI ATES OF TEXAS, P.A.; DR. YAMINI KAVITHA MADDAL A; DR. RAVI CHITTAJALLU; METROPLEX ANESTHESIA CONSULTANTS P.L.L.C.; JOHN HENRY THOMAS, I II, R.N.; AND BOGDAN NICOLAIE STA NEI-STANESCU, R.N., Appellees On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18465 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, J ustice Whitehill, and Justice Molb erg Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Appellant appeals from the trial court’s July 11, 2019 and Augu st 15, 2019 orders granting Park Venture Endoscopy Center L.L.C. Assumed Name Preston Cross ing Endoscopy Center, Anna Christen Scoggin, R.N., Digestive Health Associates of Tex as, P.A., Dr. Yamini Kavitha Maddala, Dr. Ravi Chittajallu, and Metroplex Anesthesia Consult ants P.L.L.C.’s motions to dismiss for failure to file an expert report in a healthcare li ability claim. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. &
R EM
. C ODE A NN . § 74.351(b). The Court questione d its jurisdiction over this appeal because appellant’s claims against two defendants remain pending and th e challenged orders did not appear–2– appealable. The Court requested the parties file letter briefs addressing the jurisd ictional issues. The parties complied. Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a). A final judgment is one that disposes of all parties and claims. See id

. Appellant sued eight defendants. By two separate motions, six of the defendants sought dismissal for failure of appellant to file an expert report in a healthcare liability claim. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN . § 74.351(b). The appealed orders do not constitute a final judgment because appellant’s claims against two defendants remain pending. See Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195. Moreove r, the orders granting the motions to dismiss are not a ppealable interlocutory orders. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A

NN . § 51.014(a)(9) (permitting interlocutory appeal of order denying dismissal based on failure to serve an expert report); Fisher v. Med. Ctr. of Plano , No. 05-01441-CV, 2015 WL 73441, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 6, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction of interlocutory order granting dismissal for failure to file e xpert report). Although appellant filed a letter brief, nothing therein de monstrates that this Court ha s jurisdiction over this appeal. 1

1 In their letter brief, appellees assert the interlocutory orde rs are properly reviewable under section 51.014(a)(10). See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)(10). That section permits an appeal from an orde r that grants relief sought by a motion under section 74.351(l) which concerns the adequacy of an expert report. See id . 74351(l). The motions to dismi ss filed below addressed the a bsence, not adequacy, of an expert report. For this reason, section 51.014(a)(10) is inapplicable

.–3– The trial court’s orders constitute neither a final judgment no r appealable interlocutory orders. Accordingly, we dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisd iction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

190840F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
RICK MILTEER, Appellant
No. 05-19-00840-CV V.
PARK VENTURE ENDOSCOPY CENTER L.L.C. ASSUMED NAME PRESTON CROSSING ENDOSCOPY CENTER; ANNA CHRISTEN SCOGGIN, R.N.; DIGESTIVE HEALTH ASSOCIATES OF TEXAS, P.A.; DR. YAMINI KAVITHA MADDALA; DR. RAVI CHITTAJALLU; METROPLEX ANESTHESIA CONSULTANTS, P.L.L.C.; JOHN HENRY THOMAS, III, R.N.; AND BOGDAN NICOLAIE STANEI-STANESCU, R.N., Appellees On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18465. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Whitehill and Molberg participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellees PARK VENTURE ENDOSCOPY CENTER L.L.C. ASSUMED NAME PRESTON CROSSING ENDOSCOPY CENTER; ANNA CHRISTEN SCOGGIN R.N.; DIGESTIVE HEALTH ASSOCIATES OF TEXAS, P.A.; DR. Y AMINI KAVITHA MADDALA; DR. RAVI CHITTAJALLU; METROPLEX ANESTHESIA CONSULTANTS, P.L.L.C.; JOHN HENRY THOMAS, III, R.N.; AND BOGDAN NICOLAIE STANEI-STANESCU, R.N. recover thei r costs of this appeal from a ppellant RICK MILTEER.
Judgment entered January 8, 2020