eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2007-11

Mike Bismar, M.D. v. Dorothy A. Morehead, Vaughn R. Morehead, and James P. Morehead, III, Individually and as Heirs at Law of Gloria Morehead ( 2007 )


Menu:

  •  

     

     

     

     

     

                                          COURT OF APPEALS

                                           SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                       FORT WORTH

     

     

                                            NO. 2-07-360-CV  

     

     

    MIKE BISMAR, M.D.                                                             APPELLANT

     

                                                       V.

     

    DOROTHY A. MOREHEAD,                                                     APPELLEES

    VAUGHN R. MOREHEAD, AND

    JAMES P. MOREHEAD, III,

    INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HEIRS AT LAW

    OF GLORIA MOREHEAD, DECEASED

     

                                                  ------------

     

               FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

     

                                                  ------------

     

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

     

                                                  ------------

    Mike Bismar, M.D. is attempting to appeal the trial court=s order denying his motion to dismiss the underlying medical malpractice lawsuit.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.


    Bismar moved to dismiss appellees= suit on the ground that their expert report was inadequate.[2]  This court has held that an order denying a motion to dismiss based on the alleged inadequacy of an expert report is not appealable by interlocutory appeal.[3]  Consequently, we notified Bismar by letter that his appeal was subject to dismissal unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.[4]  Although Bismar has filed a response, it does not state grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

    PER CURIAM

     

    PANEL D:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

     

    DELIVERED:  November 29, 2007                         


    [1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

    [2]Bismar concedes that the initial expert report was timely, although he complains that the supplemental expert report was not.

    [3]See Jain v. Stafford, 214 S.W.3d 94, 97 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2006, pet. dism=d).

    [4]See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Leave a Comment

Document Info

Docket Number： 02-07-00360-CV

Filed Date： 11/29/2007

Precedential Status： Precedential

Modified Date： 2/19/2016