Opinion
NO. 02-12-00034-CV
03-08-2012
CLINTON BRUNSON, M.D. APPELLANT v. ELLVAN JOHNSTON APPELLEE
FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Clinton Brunson, M.D. filed a notice of accelerated appeal from the trial court's order denying his objections to Appellee Ellvan Johnston's expert report and also filed a motion for extension of time to file the notice of accelerated appeal. We notified Brunson of our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the challenged order does not appear to be an appealable interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9) (West 2008 & Supp. 2011), § 74.351(b) (West 2011). Brunson responded by filing a motion to abate the appeal pending a ruling on his chapter 74.351 motion to dismiss, which he filed on the same day.
Generally, interlocutory orders are not appealable in the absence of a statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998). The civil practice and remedies code authorizes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a defendant physician's or health care provider's section 74.351(b) motion to dismiss a health care liability claim, not a defendant's objections to a section 74.351 expert report. See Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9); see also id. § 74.351(a) (addressing objections). Accordingly, we deny both Brunson's motion for extension of time to file the accelerated appeal and his motion to abate this appeal, and we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.