Th e or de r s tate s th at ha vin gsu sta ine d th e do c tor ’s ob je c tio n, the re wa s n o a dmi ssi ble 1 evidenc e of c ausation. C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
L I NDA S. THOMAS AND ANTHO NY THOMAS, J R., Ap pe lla nts , v. J OSEPH A. KUHN, M.D., Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 09 -0 02 05 -C V

Appea l from the County Court at L aw No. 4 of Da lla s Co unty , T e xas (TC# CC-06-01631-D)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pending be fore the Court is Appellee, D r. Jos eph Kuhn’ s motion t o dismiss this appeal for lac k of jurisdiction. Findingthat the notice of appea l was not timely

filed, the motion will be g rante d and the a

ppeal dismissed. Appellants L inda and Anthony Thomas filed suit ag ainst Dr. Kuhn in 2006, alleg ing
me dic a l ma lpr a c tic e in t

he c are and

tr e atme nt o f M s. Th oma s f oll ow inga

g a stric by

pa ss proce dure, liver

biopsy , and stomach la

parosc opy . There wer e no other parties to the law suit. Dr. Kuhn a

nswere d the suit with a g ener al denial, includinga re quest for c osts. Dr. Kuhn moved fo r n o- e vid e nc e summa

ry jud g me nt. As pa

rt of the ir re sp on se , th e Th oma s’ s p ro du c e d th e ir medical e x pert report as evide nce of causation. Dr. Kuhn objec ted to the evidenc e, arguing the expert was unqualifie d, and the e x pert’s opinions lacke d reliability . On Dec ember 1, 2008, the tr ia l c ourt e nte re d o rd e rs su sta ini ngthe do c tor ’s ob je c tio n a nd g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt. 1-2-

On May 18, 2009, the trial cour

t entere d an orde r titled “F inal J udg ment” statingthat the court ha d g rante d Dr. Kuhn’ s no-evidenc e motion for summary judgme nt based on lac k of expert
causation evidence Dec ember 1, 2008. The plaintiffs f iled a notice of

appea l on J une 17, 2009. Dr. Kuhn f

iled a motion to dism iss for lack of jurisdiction on J uly

21, 2009 arguing that the trial court’s D ece mber 1 orde r wa s a final judgment, and ther efor e, the notice of appe al was untimely
. A j ud g me nt w ill be c la ssi fi e d a s “ fi na l” a nd is t he re fo re a pp e a la ble , if the jud g me nt m e e ts at least one of two criteria; the judgment actua lly disposes of all claims and pa rties bef ore the court, or it states with “unmistaka ble clarity” that it is a final judg ment. See G uajardo v. Con we ll , 46 S.W .3d 862, 863-64 (Te x . 2001)(pe r curiam), quoting Lehman v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W .3d 191, 192 (Tex. 2001). In this inst ance , the only parties be fore the trial cour t were the Th oma s’ s and

Dr . K uhn. Th e on ly

c la im b e fo re the c ourt

wa s th e me dia l ma lpr a c tic e c la im
asser ted by the plaintiffs. Ther efor e, the De cembe r 1 summary judgme nt order w as a f

inal jud g me nt a s it

dis po se d o f a ll c la ims and pa rt ie s in the su it. In rea chingour conc lusion, we reje ct the Thomas’ s argument that the Dec ember 1 summary judgme nt order did not dispose of a ll claims betwee n the par ties beca use the trial c ourt did no t e xpre ssl y

dis po se of

Dr . K uhn’ s c la im f

or c os ts. A r e qu e st f

or c os ts i s n ot i tse lf

a “ c la im for a ffirmative relief

.” Thompson v. Bey er , 91 S.W .3d 902, 904 (Tex.App.--Da llas 2002, no pet.). In other wor ds, a judg ment which other wise disposes of a ll parties and c laims is not rende red inter locutory

by a fa ilure to awa

rd costs. Se eid . We conclude, the ref ore, that the trial
c ourt ’s summa

ry jud g me nt o rd e r o f D e c e mbe r 1 wa s a fi na l ju dgme nt a

nd the a pp e llate timetables beg an to run fr om that date. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1. A civil appea l is perfe cted whe n the notice of appea l is filed. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1;-3-

Restrepo v . First Nat ’l Bank of Dona Ana County, N.M. , 892 S.W .2d 237, 238 (Tex.App-- El Paso 1995, no writ)(a

pplying f ormer Rule 40.1( a)( 1)). When no motion for new trial or reque st for finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law is filed, the notice of appe al must be filed within thirty

day s of the date the judg ment is signed. T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1. W hen a motion for new tria l is filed, or a pa

rty timely files a r equest for

finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, the notice of a

ppeal is due nine ty

day s after

the judg ment is signed. T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1(a). Fur thermore , an untimely

notice of a

ppeal will be c onsidered timely if it is filed within fifteen da y s a ft e r t he du e date , a

nd is a c c omp anie d b y

a re a so na ble e xplanatio n f

or a pp e lla nt’ s f a ilure to file on the due date. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 26 .3 ; Vergburgt v. Dorne r , 9 5 9 S. W. 2 d 6 1 5 , 6 1 7 ( T e x. 1997). Ac c or din gto R

ule 26 .1 , th e late st t

he no tic e of

a pp e a l c ou ld h ave be e n ti me ly fi le d in thi s
case was Mar ch 16, 2009. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1 (a) a nd 26.3. We are not awar e of a ny circ umstance which would extend the deadline f or filingthe notice of

appea l to J une 17, 2009. There fore , the notice of

appea l was untimely

and fa iled to invoke this Court’s jurisdi ction. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.1(a); Appe llant’s motion to di smiss i s GRANTED, a nd the appe al is dismis sed for lac k of jurisdiction. September 23, 2009 DAVID WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.