was required to object to the reports within 21 days. See id. The Hospital filed its motion to dismiss more than three months after the statutory deadline for objections. Consequently, the Hospital waived all of its objections to the sufficiency of Nguyen’s expert reports, including its argument that Nguyen’s vicarious liability claim is frivolous. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Hospital’s motion to dismiss. See McCoy, 283 S.W.3d at 100, 103. We overrule the Hospital’s sole issue. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the Hospital’s motion to dismiss. 1 . We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory-appeal. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(9); see Neason v. Buckner, 352 S.W.3d 254, 257 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§
holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal holding court had jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal in which trial court had denied an untimely motion to dismiss expert report holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial holding court lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity by defendants who were not public officials