Tharwat M. Hamamcy, M.D. v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners ( 1995 )

CV4-142 TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN



NO. 03-94-00142-CV



Tharwat M. Hamamcy, M.D., Appellant

v.

Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 93-09583, HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Tharwat M. Hamamcy, M.D., sued the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners (the Board) seeking injunctive relief against the Board's revocation of his license to practice medicine. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment against him. We will dismiss the cause as moot.

As a preliminary matter, the State complains in its brief that appellant has violated the briefing rules. Tex. R. App. P. 74(c), (d), (f). We agree. Appellant's brief does not follow the format specified in the rules. It is difficult to decipher from appellant's brief whether he is complaining about the Board's revocation of his license, or complaining about past actions of the Board that he claims impaired or limited his license or in some way affected credentials over which the Board had no authority. ⁽¹⁾ Nevertheless, appellant is proceeding pro se, and, in the interests of justice, we will consider his cause on the merits to the degree that we can. See Williams v. Khalaf, 820 S.W.2d 651, 658 (Tex. 1990). We interpret appellant's brief as complaining about the license revocation.

BACKGROUND

On June 25, 1993, the Board, acting under the authority of the Medical Practices Act, revoked appellant's license to practice medicine. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4495b, §§ 4.01(a), 4.12 (West Supp. 1995). The revocation order included a recitation of the Board's findings of facts and conclusions of law and concluded that appellant had failed to practice medicine in a manner consistent with preserving public health and welfare and had engaged in unprofessional conduct that was likely to injure the public.

Appellant timely filed a motion for rehearing, which was overruled. Before the Board acted on the motion for rehearing, appellant filed a suit for monetary damages. ⁽²⁾ He later filed additional suits seeking judicial review of the Board's decision and injunctive relief against the Board. This appeal involves the suit for injunctive relief.

MOOTNESS

Appellant's request for injunctive relief was based on the license revocation proceeding. Appellant's original petition in this cause below, styled "Motion for Injunctive Relief, Motion for Emergency Expedited Hearing and Brief in Support" prayed for the trial court to hold an expedited hearing on an injunction against the Board's action. A hearing has been held concerning the revocation and the injunction. This Court has affirmed the trial court's dismissal of his attempt at judicial review of the revocation. Hamamcy v. Texas State Bd. of Medical Examiners, No. 03-94-00136-CV (Tex. App.--Austin May 31, 1995, no writ h.).

Once the event to which an injunction relates has passed, the appeal is moot. See Texas Educ. Agency v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 797 S.W.2d 367, 369 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, no writ). Because we have affirmed the license revocation, injunctive relief preventing the Board from revoking the license pending a hearing in the trial court would have no effect. Further, appellant was granted the relief he asked for in his petition. When an appeal is moot, the judgment must be set aside and the cause dismissed. Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep't v. Texas Ass'n of Bass Clubs, 622 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. App.--Austin 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Because the appeal is moot, we set aside the judgment below and dismiss the cause.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and B. A. Smith

Judgment Set Aside and Cause Dismissed

Filed: June 21, 1995

Do Not Publish

1. ¹  At times, he complains of his license being defective or of having the only license in Texas based on "medical credentials of the unknown quality of medical education and medical training."

2. ²  This suit was cause number 93-07768, from which appellant apparently did not appeal.