Stanley Davis, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Eunice D.C. Davis v. ESC II, LP D/B/A Emeritus at Vickery Towers, Laila Hirjee, M.D., and Laila Hirjee M.D. P.A.
05-15-00551-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 30, 2015Background
- Appellant Stanley Davis sued health-care defendants (ESC II, Laila Hirjee, M.D., and her practice) asserting medical-liability claims and seeking attorney’s fees.
- Trial court granted motions under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351 and entered orders dismissing Davis’s claims on February 18, 2015.
- Each dismissal order labeled itself “final,” contained a Mother Hubbard clause, but expressly reserved determination of attorney’s fees for a future hearing.
- Davis filed a motion for new trial after the orders were signed, but did not file any accelerated-interlocutory appeal within 20 days. He filed his notice of appeal on April 28, 2015 (69 days after the orders).
- The Court of Appeals sua sponte questioned jurisdiction because the orders were not final and the interlocutory deadline was missed, and Davis did not respond to the Court’s jurisdictional letter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dismissal orders are final and appealable | Orders state they are final; thus appealable | Orders reserve attorney’s fees, so not final | Not final: reservation of fees prevents finality |
| Whether interlocutory statutory avenue under §51.014 permits appeal | Appellant implied appeal under §51.014 for §74.351 orders | Appellees argued appellant failed to timely perfect any interlocutory appeal | Even if §51.014 authorizes interlocutory appeals, appellant missed the 20-day accelerated appeal deadline |
| Whether filing a motion for new trial extends interlocutory appeal deadline | Motion for new trial would preserve/extend appeal window | Rule 26.1(a) motions do not extend accelerated appeal deadline | Motion for new trial did not extend the accelerated 20‑day deadline |
| Whether Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal | Davis implicitly contended appeal was proper | Appellees contended no timely appeal; jurisdiction lacking | Court lacks jurisdiction; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- M.O. Dental Lab. v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2004) (courts must address jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final-judgment rules and when non-trial judgments are final)
- McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2001) (reservation of attorney’s fees prevents finality)
- In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. 2005) (accelerated-appeal deadlines are strict; motions for new trial do not extend 20-day deadline)