a request for a thirty-day extension to cure any alleged deficiencies in his expert reports as provided under section 74.351(c). See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351(c) (Vernon Supp. 2008) (providing that the trial court may grant one thirty-day extension to the claimant to cure deficiencies in an expert report). Because the trial court granted the motion for reconsideration, McCoy argues, it granted this requested relief and therefore its order is not appealable. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9) (Vernon 2008) (permitting interlocutory appeal of order that denies relief sought under section 74.351(b), “except that an appeal may not be taken from an order granting an extension under [s]ection 74.351”); Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tex.2007) (<HOLDING>). We disagree that we have no jurisdiction over
holding that if a deficient report is served and the trial court grants a thirtyday extension that decision is not subject to appellate review even if it is coupled with a motion to dismiss holding that it is not holding that a constitutional challenge to a statute is not properly preserved for appellate review if as here it is not presented to the trial court and is raised for the first time on appeal holding 30day extension may be granted if report is timely served contains opinion of individual with expertise that claim has merit and defendants conduct is implicated holding a decision denying a motion to dismiss an action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable