relief that remains pending in the trial court, the rulings appellant seeks to appeal are interlocutory. See North East I.S.D. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex.1966) (noting “to be final a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in a case”). It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute specifically provides for appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex.1998). Section 166.046 does not expressly provide a right to appeal the trial court’s ruling on a request for extension of time for life sustaining treatment, thus indicating the legislature did not intend to permit such an appeal. See, e.g., Ex parte Burr, 139 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. stricken) (<HOLDING>). While an interlocutory appeal from the grant
holding temporary restraining order void because court waived bond holding that alaskas legislature did not intend its kidnapping statute to be interpreted as broadly as the literal language indicated holding that failure to include right to appeal in statute indicated legislature did not intend to permit appeal from denial of temporary restraining order holding temporary restraining order void for lack of requirement of separate bond holding that where defendant received temporary restraining order and had actual knowledge of hearing technical failure to include summons with tro did not deprive trial court of personal jurisdiction