Deloris Phillips v. Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation, et al. Appeal from 101st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 19, 2022 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00120-CV DELORIS PHILLIPS, Appellant V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE DIVISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, FLEMING FOODS, INC., CORE-MARK HOLDING CO., THE RAYMOND CORP., CIGNA INSURANCE CO., BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE CO., ESIS-CHUBB MANAGEMENT CORP., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 767, CITY OF DALLAS MUNICIPALITY, DALLAS COUNTY MUNCIPALITY, AND DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellees On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-06299 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Goldstein, and Justice Smith Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Appellant appeals from the trial court’s January 31, 2022 interlocutory order granting the Rule 91a motion to dismiss filed by The Raymond Corporation, one of numerous defendants. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a. Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). A final judgment is one that disposes of all parties and claims. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. Because the appealed order did not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal and instructed the parties to file letter briefs addressing the issue. In her letter briefs filed on April 1 and April 18, appellant fails to address the lack of a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. Rather, appellant asserts, without explanation, that the reporter’s record1 will “factually validate” our jurisdiction over the appeal. Also, without explanation, appellant cites to this Court’s opinion in Dezoete v. Raymond Corp., No. 05-19-01301-CV, 2020 WL 7382302, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 16, 2020, no pet.). Dezoete is not applicable because it involved an appeal from a final judgment over which we had jurisdiction. The order appealed is interlocutory because it does not dispose of appellant’s claims against all parties. Appellant has not provided any authority demonstrating that the order is otherwise appealable and nothing before us reflects the reporter’s record would assist us. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE 220120F.P05 1 We suspended the deadline for the reporter’s record pending determination of our jurisdiction over the appeal. –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DELORIS PHILLIPS, Appellant No. 05-22-00120-CV On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-06299. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Goldstein and Smith participating. V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE DIVISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, FLEMING FOODS, INC., COREMARK HOLDING CO., THE RAYMOND CORP., CIGNA INSURANCE CO., BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE CO., ESIS-CHUBB MANAGEMENT CORP., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 767, CITY OF DALLAS MUNICIPALITY, DALLAS COUNTY MUNCIPALITY, AND DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellees –3– In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. Judgment entered April 19, 2022. –4–
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.
