DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 12, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00291-CV CODY BERNARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL BERNARD, AND BLAKE BERNARD, Appellants V. ALEXANDER WESLEY KADIN, M.D., MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A MEMORI AL HERMANN KATY HOSPITAL,

CHI ST. LUKE’S HEALTH – THE WOODLANDS HOSPITAL, YASIR ELHAWI, M.D., AND HEINE RUIZ, M.D., Appellees On Appeal from the 215th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-53620

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Molberg, and Justice Smith Opinion by Chief Justice Burns This interlocutory appeal, from the tr ial court’s orders granting appellees’ individual motions to dismiss the underlyi ng health care liability claims against them, was brought pursuant to section 51.014(a)(10) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51.014(a)(10). Because section 51.014(a)(10) does not authorize the appeal and neither does any other–2– statute or rule, we dismiss the a ppeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a). It is well-established that an appeal may only be taken fro m a final judgment that disposes of all parties and claims or from an interl ocutory order as authorized by statute. See Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps , 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992). Of the interlocutory rulings a trial court may make in a health care liability suit, appellate review is allowed for just tw o: (1) an order denyi ng relief under section 74.351(b) and (2) an order granti ng relief under section 74.351(l). See C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE §§ 51.014(a)(9),(10); Lewis v. Funderburk , 253 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2008). Both sections allow for challe nges to the expert re port required to be served on the defendant no late r than 120 days after the da te the defendant’s answer is filed, see C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE § 74.351(a), but section 74.351(b) applies once the 120-day window has closed and furthe r allows the defendant to move for dismissal of the claim with prejudice and fo r reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. See Funderburk , 253 S.W.3d at 207 (comparing s ections 74.351(b) and (l)). The record here reflects the expert re ports were timely served, and the motions to dismiss were filed after the 120-day window had closed. The record further reflects the motions to dismiss challenged the sufficiency of appellants’ expert reports and, except for one, requested manda tory attorney’s fees and costs. The appealed orders sustained the objections to the reports and dismissed the claims–3– against appellees but did not determine the amount of fees and costs to be awarded, with one order specifically stating that the amount was “TBD.” Given the record, we questioned whethe r section 51.014(a)(10) authorized the appeal. In jurisdictional brie fing filed at our request, appe llants urge the appeal is authorized under that section because, by sustaining the challenges, the orders granted relief under section 74.351( l). Alternatively, they argue the orders are final because all defendants have been dismissed. Although the orders sustained appellees’ challenges to the reports, the orders further dismissed the claims against appellees . An order that dismisses a health care liability claim is an orde r under section 74.351(b). See Funderburk , 253 S.W.3d at 207. And, while all defendants may have been dismi ssed, the orders are not final because the claims for fees and costs remain pending. 1 See Jack B. Anglin , 842 S.W.2d at 272. Because the appealed orders grante d relief under section 74.351(b) and did not address attorney’s fees and costs, th ey are unappealable interlocutory orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

210291F.P05

1 Appellants request that, in the event we determine th e judgment is not final, we grant them sixty days to secure a final judgment. Nothing before us, however, reflects a hearing on the issue of fees and costs is imminent or has even been set. A ccordingly, we decline the request. /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
CODY BERNARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL BERNARD, AND BLAKE BERNARD, Appellants
No. 05-21-00291-CV V. ALEXANDER WESLEY KADIN, M.D., MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A MEMORIAL HERMANN KATY HOSPITAL, CHI ST. LUKE’S HEALTH - THE WOODLANDS HOSPITAL, YASIR ELHAWI, M.D., AND HEINE RUIZ, M.D., Appellees On Appeal from the 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-53620. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, Justices Molberg and Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.–5– We ORDER that appellees Alexander Wesley Kadin, M.D., Memorial Hermann Health System d/b/a Memorial Hermann Katy Hospital, CHI St. Luke’s Health - The Woodlands Hospital, Yasir Elhawi, M.D., a nd Heine Ruiz, M.D. recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appella nts Cody Bernard, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Paul Bernard, and Blake Bernard.
Judgment entered July 12, 2021.