Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1999

Taria Marie Altman v. Lake Whitney Memorial Hospital

Taria Marie Altman v. Lake Whitney Memorial Hospital
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided August 11, 1999

Taria Marie Altman v. Lake Whitney Memorial Hospital

Opinion

Heading for abatement






IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-99-080-CV


     TARIA MARIE ALTMAN,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.


     LAKE WHITNEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

     AND LAKE WHITNEY MEDICAL CENTER,

                                                                                              Appellees


From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court # 35,919A

                                                                                                                

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                                


      Taria Marie Altman filed a medical malpractice suit against Appellees and a physician who treated Altman in Appellees’ emergency room. The court granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and severed Altman’s claims against Appellees from her claims against the physician. Altman appeals the summary judgment granted Appellees.

      Altman timely filed a notice of appeal by depositing her notice in the mail on April 8, 1998. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1). The reporter’s record was filed in this Court on April 27, and the clerk’s record was filed on May 24. Although her brief was due on June 23, no appellant’s brief has been filed. Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a).

      Appellate Rule 38.8(a)(1) provides that if an appellant fails to timely file her brief, the Court may:

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief.


Id. 38.8(a)(1).

      More than thirty days have passed since Altman's brief was due. We notified her of this defect by letter on July 7. Id. 42.3, 44.3. She has not responded to our letter requesting an extension or showing grounds for continuing the appeal, nor has she provided a reasonable explanation for failing to file a brief. Id. 42.3, 38.8(a)(1). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1).

                                                                         PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed August 11, 1999

Do not publish

risdiction.

 

                                                                   REX D. DAVIS

                                                                   Chief Justice


Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

      (Justice Gray concurring)

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Opinion delivered and filed January 8, 2003

Publish

[CR25]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.