appeals.” TEX. Gov’t.Code § 22.002(a). 4 . See Nat’l Med. Enters. v. Godbey, 924 S.W.2d 123, 133 (Tex.1996) (disqualification of counsel); Able Supply Co. v. Moye, 898 S.W.2d 766, 772 (Tex.1995) (denial of discovery); TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Flores, 870 S.W.2d 10, 12 (Tex.1994) (outcome determinative sanctions). 5 . The Court recites that the expert reports at issue addressed the claims of 224 patients. However, only ten patients were real parties when the petition was filed in this Court and only eight patients remain in this proceeding. 6 . It remains an open question whether a denial of a motion to dismiss under the MLIIA’s expert report requirement is reviewable on appeal after a final judgment on the merits. See Villafani v. Trejo, 251 S.W.3d 466, 471 n. 2 (Tex.2008) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The Legislature has the authority to make
holding that pure issue of law is preserved by motion for summary judgment and is reviewable after final judgment holding that the boards denial of a motion to reopen is reviewable by the federal courts of appeals holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable  holding the denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue which is later submitted to the jury is not reviewable holding that the denial of a motion to dismiss under the mliia is reviewable after a nonsuit but noting that a motion for sanctions under the mliia may not always be reviewable on appeal after a final judgment