Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2004

Marion Thomas West, Individually and D/B/A Royle Container Company v. Brenntag...

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided May 11, 2004

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-03-00149-CV

______________________________

MARION THOMAS WEST, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A

ROYLE CONTAINER COMPANY, Appellants

BRENNTAG SOUTHWEST, INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO

DELTA SOLVENTS AND CHEMICAL COMPANY,

FORMERLY D/B/A DELTA CONTAINER, Appellees

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-90-CCL2

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Marion Thomas West, Individually and d/b/a Royle Container Company has filed a purported appeal. He filed a docketing statement with this Court reflecting that a jury had reached a verdict and that he filed his notice of appeal November 7, 2003. He has requested preparation of the clerk's and reporter's records, neither of which has been filed. This is likely because the trial court has signed no judgment in this case.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On April 2, 2004, over five months after West filed his notice of appeal, we recognized no record had been filed and no action apparently taken to obtain it. We then contacted counsel by letter, specifically pointing out that, as of that date, no judgment had been signed from which he could appeal and warning him that, if he did not take sufficient action to show this Court the appeal was proceeding properly, it would be subject to dismissal.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â As of this date, no judgment has been signed in this case. Appellate timetables are calculated from the date the judgment is signed. As there is no judgment in existence from which an appeal may be pursued, we dismiss this appeal, without prejudice to an appeal being taken after a judgment is signed.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Josh R. Morriss, III

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Chief Justice

Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â May 10, 2004

Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â May 11, 2004

Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>

In The

Court of Appeals

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ______________________________

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â No. 06-10-00127-CV

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ______________________________

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â TIMMIE PARKS, Appellant

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â V.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, Appellee

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On Appeal from the 202nd Judicial District Court

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Bowie County, Texas

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Trial Court No. 09C1642A-202

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MEMORANDUM OPINION

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Timmie Parks filed suit against the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) OctoberÂ 29, 2009.^{^[1]}Â He alleged that, while he was incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Telford Unit in New Boston, Texas, he was injured while working on the prison boiler system and the resulting diagnosis and treatment by the UTMB staff members at the prison was conducted negligently.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Parks alleged that he lacked the financial ability to secure his own medical expert and on November 4, 2009, moved the court to appoint him a medical expert so that he could comply with the medical expert report requirements of Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.Â Parks filed a motion for default judgment on December 23, 2009, alleging that UTMBÂs answer to his petition was untimely filed.Â Two months later, on February 11, 2010, Parks filed a motion petitioning the court to order that a physician examine him so that he could prove the elements of his health care liability claims.Â

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On February 12, 2010, UTMB moved to dismiss^{^[2]} ParksÂ lawsuit because he had failed to serve an expert report^{^[3]} within 120 days of filing suit, as required by Section 74.351 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.Â See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. Â§ 74.351 (West 2011).Â After a hearing where both UTMB and Parks^{^[4]} appeared, the trial court granted UTMBÂs motion to dismiss and denied all other relief not expressly granted in the judgment.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On appeal, Parks argues that: Â (1) the trial court erred by not ruling on his three motions prior to dismissing his claims against UTMB; and (2) this failure deprived him of his right to an interlocutory appeal of those rulings.^{^[5]}Â We affirm the trial courtÂs judgment.Â Â Â Â Â

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The trial courtÂs order granting UTMBÂs motion to dismiss did not specifically reference ParksÂ motions, but the order states:Â Âthe Court denies all relief not expressly granted in this judgment.ÂÂ In his first point of error, Parks contends that the trial court erred by failing to rule on his three motions before dismissing his claims against UTMB.^{^[6]}Â

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â When a trial courtÂs express ruling on one motion necessarily implies a contrary ruling on an opposing motion, the trial court may be deemed to have implicitly ruled on the opposing motion.Â See Salinas v. Rafati, 948 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex. 1997); see also In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163, 165 (Tex. 2003) (holding trial courtÂs act of proceeding to trial without issuing requested bench warrant was implicit denial of its request).Â Dismissing ParksÂ claims against UTMB necessarily implies that ParksÂ motions were denied.Â Because the trial courtÂs judgment implicitly denied ParksÂ motions, we overrule his first point of error.Â Our ruling on the first point of error makes the second point a moot issue.Â Â Â

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Jack Carter

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Justice

Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â June 23, 2011

Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â June 24, 2011

^{^[1]}Parks also named the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) as a defendant, and asserted negligence and premises liability claims against it.Â

^{^[2]}The motion also included a motion to sever ParksÂ claims against UTMB from his claims against TDCJ, which was granted.

^{^[3]}It is undisputed that Parks failed to serve UTMB with a medical expert report.

^{^[4]}Parks appeared and participated via closed-circuit television.

^{^[5]}Parks does not argue that his motions tolled the running of the 120-day time period.

^{^[6]}Parks does not argue that the trial court erred by denying his motions.

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