275 S.W.3d 475 (Tex.2008). The Tyler Court of Appeals determined that “[b]eeause [the healthcare defendant’s] complaint relates to the content of the réport ... the report is deficient, but the deficiency does not render it ‘no report at all.’ ” Id. Therefore, the trial court had discretion to order an extension thus depriving the court of jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal. Id. at 851-52. The Houston Fourteenth, Fort Worth, El Paso, and Dallas Courts of Appeal have all held that they lack jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal when a trial court grants an extension to cure timely served expert reports that healthcare defendants assert are “no report” as to them. Baylor Coll. of Med. v. Pokluda, 283 S.W.3d 110, 115-16 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Scoresby v. Santillan, 287 S.W.3d 319, 321-24
holding that where notice of deficiency fails adequately to describe the basis on which the commissioner relies for his deficiency determination burden shifts to the commissioner to prove the accuracy of the deficiency determination holding that a second deficiency notice issued for a taxable year was valid where it determined a deficiency in a different type of tax than did the earlier deficiency notice holding that any deficiency in failure to object to hearsay did not prejudice defendant when testimony was cumulative of other evidence holding that a party is not entitled to pursue a separate action for deficiency judgment where the foreclosure complaint includes a prayer for a deficiency judgment and the foreclosure court reserves jurisdiction to enter a deficiency judgment holding no jurisdiction when trial court granted extension because it found deficiency even though it was not same deficiency complained of by appellant in his motion to dismiss