cases-BCM
PETITIONS DENIED BY TEXAS SUPREME COURT IN BAYLOR CASES
08-0069
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, AND SARA THOMAS, R.N. v. DIANNA ROSA; from Dallas
County; 5th district (05-07-00639-CV, 240 SW3d 565, 12-07-07)(HCLC, sufficiency of expert report)
07-0605
AMY YOUNG, M.D. AND BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE v. SILVIA VILLEGAS AND ARMANDO
VILLEGAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF M.A.V., A MINOR; from Harris
County; 14th district (14-06-00072-CV, 231 SW3d 1, 04-03-07, pet. denied March 2008)(Health care
liability claim, immunity claim, interlocutory appeal) (HCLC, suit against medical school, BCM cases)
This is an interlocutory appeal in which the parents of a minor child allegedly injured by negligent
medical treatment at a public hospital asserted healthcare-liability claims against a doctor and a
supported medical school. Both the doctor and the medical school filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction as well as a motion for summary judgment asserting immunity under section
312.006 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. The medical school asserted no claims for affirmative
relief against any party, and the parents nonsuited all of their claims against the medical school before
the trial court ruled on the pending motions. The trial court later signed an order denying the doctor's
motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The medical school seeks to assert an
interlocutory appeal from this order, claiming that, despite the nonsuit, it is still a party in this case and it
still may appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order. We conclude the medical school's arguments
lack merit and dismiss its appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Because the doctor is not a
governmental unit, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over her appeal from the denial of her
jurisdictional motion, and we dismiss this appeal as well. Finally, we conclude that, although we have
appellate jurisdiction over the doctor's appeal from the denial of her motion for summary judgment, the
trial court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of this motion.