Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
Phyllis LEE, Appellant
GRAND PRAIRIE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee
Opinion Filed June 7, 2022
On Appeal from the 95th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-18237
Attorneys & Firms
Phyllis Lee, Pro Se.
Timothy R. White Jr., for Appellee.
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Nowell
*1 In the underlying lawsuit, appellant seeks judicial review of the decision and order of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation. She appeals from the trial court’s March 25, 2022 interlocutory order granting appellee’s motion to transfer venue and transferring the case to Travis County. Because the interlocutory order did not appear to be subject to appeal, we questioned our jurisdiction and directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing the issue. The parties complied.
Generally, this Court has jurisdiction over final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A trial court’s venue determination is not subject to an interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.064(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 87(6).
In her letter brief, appellant asserts the trial court may permit an appeal of an order that is not otherwise appealable. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d). Appellant is correct, but the record before us does not contain a written order permitting an appeal of the venue order. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. In the remainder of appellant’s letter brief, she addresses the merits of the trial court’s action transferring venue.
The trial court’s interlocutory venue order is not subject to interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.064(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 87(6). Because appellant has failed to demonstrate that we have jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).