Ricardo Barrera, M.D. v. Isela Rico and Manuel Rico, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of Gloria Rico, a Minor ( 2005 )

                              NUMBER 13-04-480-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RICARDO BARRERA, M.D.,                                                  Appellant,

                                                             v.                               

ISELA RICO AND MANUEL RICO,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND

NEXT FRIENDS OF GLORIA RICO, A MINOR,                              Appellees.

      On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                          Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellees sued appellant for medical negligence.  The trial court then granted appellees= motion to compel the deposition of appellant and motion to extend the deadline for filing an expert report pursuant to the Texas Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act.^[1]  After appellees filed an expert report, appellant filed a motion for sanctions and for dismissal with prejudice, contending that the report was filed untimely.  The trial court denied appellant=s motion, and appellant subsequently filed a second motion for sanctions and for dismissal with prejudice, this time contending that the report was inadequate.  The trial court denied appellant=s second motion. Appellees then filed a notice of nonsuit on their claims against appellant, see Tex. R. Civ. P. 162, and the trial court dismissed the claims without prejudice.  Subsequently, appellant appealed to this Court, challenging the trial court=s denial of his two motions.  We conclude that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the two interlocutory orders because they were rendered moot by the trial court=s subsequent dismissal of the case.  See FDIC v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. 1994).  The nonsuit vitiated the orders and rendered moot any controversy regarding them.  See In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35, 38 (Tex. 1997) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). This appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.           

_______________________               

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,                

Justice

Dissenting Memorandum Opinion

by Justice Errlinda Castillo.

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 21st day of July, 2005.                       

---

¹ See Act of May 30, 1977, 65th Leg., R.S., ch. 817, 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 2039 (as amended) (former Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4590i), repealed by Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, ' 10.09, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 884 (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code '' 74.001 et seq.).