OPINION
Appellant, Elsie M. Rodriguez, appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of ap- *443 pellee, Wayne S. Gill. The dispositive issuе before this court is whether the summary judgment granted was a proper final order and appealable. Tex.R.Apр.P. 90(a).
The standards for reviewing summary judgment are well settled. They are as follows:
1. The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2. In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue pre-cluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true.
3. Every rеasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubts resolved in its favor.
Goswami v. Metropolitan Sav. & Loan Ass’n,
The defendant’s burden of proof in a summary judgment is to show as a matter of law that the plaintiff has no cause of action against him.
Citizens First Nat’l Bank оf Tyler v. Cinco Exploration Co.,
It is axiomatic that one may not be granted judgment as a matter of law on a cause of action not addressed in a summary judgment proceеding. In City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth.,589 S.W.2d 671 , 678 (Tex.1979), we wrote, “The movant ... must establish his entitlement to a summary judgment on the issues expressly presented to the trial court by conclusively proving all еssential elements of his cause of action or defense as a matter of law.” (emphasis added).
Chessher v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.,
A summary judgment, unlike а judgment signed after a trial on the merits, is presumed to dispose of only those issues expressly presented, not all issues in the case. A summary judgment that fаils to dispose expressly of all parties and issues in the pending suit is interlocutory and not appealable unless a severance of that phase of the case is ordered by the trial court; in the absence of an order of severаnce, the party against whom an interlocutory summary judgment has been rendered has his right of appeal when and not before such partial summary judgment is merged in a final judgment disposing of all parties and issues.
Id. at 492.
The record reveals that because of a work related injury, appellant was referred to appellee by one of appellant’s treating doctors for a professional evaluation. Ap-pellee diagnosed appellant as “malingеring” in a written report. Thereafter, this lawsuit was filed against appellee and other defendants.
The record reflects that no special exemptions were filed against any of appellant’s pleadings, and they must thereforе be liberally construed.
Roark v. Allen,
Therefore, since this summary judgment “is presumed to dispose of only those issues
expressly presented,
[and] not all issues in the case,” this summary judgment “fails to dispose expressly of all ... issues in the pending suit [and it] is [consequently] interlocutory and not appealаble unless a severance of that phase of the case is ordered by the trial court.”
City of Beaumont,
Consеquently, the trial court here erred in attempting to enter a final judgment as to all causes of action against the appellee when it should have entered only an interlocutory partial summary judgment. Thus, the only remaining issue is whether this cоurt should dismiss this appeal or reverse this judgment and remand for disposition of all undisposed parties and issues which were nоt the subject of a proper severance order.
Where a summary judgment order is appealed which is clearly interlocutory on its face, in the absence of an order of severance, the appellate courts should dismiss because the order is nonappealable.
Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co.,
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the trial court for disposal of аll issues and parties by a proper final and appealable order, or a proper severance order which will make any partial summary judgment final and appealable.