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 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 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Molberg 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s July 11, 2019 and August 15, 2019 orders granting 

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, and Metroplex Anesthesia Consultants P.L.L.C.’s motions to 

dismiss for failure to file an expert report in a healthcare liability claim. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(b). The Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal because 

appellant’s claims against two defendants remain pending and the challenged orders did not appear 
 –2– 

appealable. The Court requested the parties file letter briefs addressing the jurisdictional 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); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 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 TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 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. Moreover, the orders granting 

the motions to dismiss are not appealable interlocutory orders. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 

ANN. § 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 expert report). Although appellant filed 

a letter brief, nothing therein demonstrates that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal.1

 

 1

 In their letter brief, appellees assert the interlocutory orders are properly reviewable under section 51.014(a)(10). See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(10). That section permits an appeal from an order 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 dismiss filed below addressed the absence, 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 nor appealable interlocutory 

orders. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. 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 appeal 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. 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. recover their costs of this appeal from appellant RICK MILTEER. 

Judgment entered January 8, 2020