Luis Ignacio Aguirre v. Northwest Texas Healthcare Systems, Inc. and Universal Health Services ( 2003 )

NO. 07-02-0342-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
APRIL 14, 2003
______________________________
LUIS IGNACIO AGUIRRE, APPELLANT
V.
NORTHWEST TEXAS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. AND
UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, APPELLEES
_________________________________
FROM THE 108th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 88,725; HONORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
OPINION
Luis Ignacio Aguirre appeals from an order of dismissal in his suit against Northwest
Texas Healthcare Systems, Inc. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
In May, 2001, Luis Ignacio Aguirre sued Northwest Texas Healthcare Systems, Inc.,
and Universal Health Services. Northwest answered the suit on May 16, 2001. Universal
filed a Special Appearance on December 12, 2001. In due course, Northwest filed a
Motion to Dismiss, subsequently amended, by which it asserted Aguirre’s alleged
noncompliance with TEX . REV . CIV . STAT. ANN . art. 4590i (Vernon Supp. 2002). The trial
court dismissed Aguirre’s claim with prejudice by order signed on July 10, 2002. The order
did not address Aguirre’s claims against Universal. The order contained a Mother
Hubbard clause that “All relief requested and not expressly granted herein is DENIED.”
Aguirre’s claims against Northwest were not severed from his claims against Universal.
Aguirre appealed the dismissal. Northwest has moved to dismiss the appeal.
Northwest asserts that the order of July 10, 2002, is interlocutory and not appealable.
To be a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken, the judgment must
dispose of all parties and all issues in the case. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Whether a judicial decree is a final judgment must be
determined from its language and the record in the case. Id.at 195. The inclusion of a
Mother Hubbard clause--the statement, "all relief not granted is denied," or essentially
those words–is not conclusive indication that a judgment rendered without a conventional
trial is final for purposes of appeal. Id. at 203-04. An order that disposes of claims against
one of multiple defendants does not adjudicate claims by or against other defendants. Id.
at 205. If the record reveals the existence of parties or claims not mentioned in the order,
the order is not final. Id. at 206.
2
Aguirre’s claims against Universal were not addressed by the July 10th order.
According to the record before us, those claims continue. The order from which Aguirre
appeals is not final for purposes of appeal. We do not have jurisdiction. Northwest’s
motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX . R. APP . P. 42.3.
Per Curiam
3