Opinion ID: 3008271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Texas appellate courts generally have jurisdiction only over final judgments. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. 2001). But an exception exists for certain interlocutory orders. See TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE § 51.014(a); Jackson, 53 S.W.3d at 355. Section 51.014(a) provides in relevant part: A person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, or county court that: ... (9) denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b), except that an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351. TEX . CIV . PRAC. & REM . CODE § 51.014(a)(9). A court of appeals’ judgment ordinarily is conclusive when an interlocutory appeal is taken pursuant to section 51.014(a)(9). See TEX . GOV ’T CODE § 22.225(b)(3). However, we may consider 5 an interlocutory appeal when the court of appeals’ decision creates an inconsistency in the law that should be clarified to remove unnecessary uncertainty and unfairness to litigants. Id. §§ 22.001(a)(2), (e); 22.225(c), (e). This case involves an issue on which the courts of appeals have issued inconsistent decisions. Compare ___ S.W.3d at ___ (holding that a doctor’s alleged fondling of the plaintiffs’ breasts during medical examinations could not feasibly be explained as a necessary part of medical treatment and therefore does not give rise to an HCLC), with Vanderwerff v. Beathard, 239 S.W.3d 406, 409 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (concluding that a chiropractor’s alleged rubbing of a plaintiff’s genitals during a chiropractic examination gave rise to an HCLC because whether the chiropractor’s actions were within the scope of a chiropractic examination could not be answered without reference to the standard of care required of a chiropractic provider). We have jurisdiction to resolve this issue. TEX . GOV ’T CODE § 22.001(a)(2).