M&M Orthodontics P.A.and Harlingen Family Dentistry v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Dr. Kyle Janek, In His Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Carole Hurley, Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Texas Health and Human Services Commiss Appeal from 345th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00548-CV M&M Orthodontics, P.A., and Harlingen Family Dentistry, Appellants v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Dr. Kyle Janek, in his Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Carole Hurley, Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Judge Keith Grantham of the Appeals Division Texas Health and Human Services Commission; and Rick Gilpin, Administrative Law Judge of the Appeals Division Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345th JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-14-001109, HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellees Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Dr. Kyle Janek, in his Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Carole Hurley, Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Judge Keith Grantham of the Appeals Division Texas Health and Human Services Commission; and Rick Gilpin, Administrative Law Judge of the Appeals Division Texas Health and Human Services Commission have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. The appellees have advised the Court that the underlying administrative actions that were pending against appellant M&M Orthodontics and appellant Harlingen Family Dentistry in the HHSC Appeals Division have been nonsuited and dismissed, rendering moot the issues raised by appellants in their appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). We conclude, based on our review of the appellees’ motion and the record, that the appeal has become moot. “If a case is or becomes moot, the court must vacate any order or judgment previously issued and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.” Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment signed on August 7, 2014, and dismiss this appeal as moot. We also dismiss all other pending motions as moot. __________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field Vacated and Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: January 30, 2015 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
