With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". mentioned one doctor but not the other, and both doctors asserted that the report was “so deficient that it [did] not constitute an expert report.” Id. Though noting the report did not name one of the doctors, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals rejected the doctors’ argument and, citing Ogletree, held that it lacked jurisdiction over both interlocutory appeals because the order denying their motions to dismiss included an order granting an extension. Id. at 455. In Nexion Health at Oak Manor, Inc. v. Brewer, the healthcare defendant asserted that the plaintiffs expert report did not address causation and was not merely deficient but no report at all. 243 S.W.3d 848, 851 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2008) (opinion on rehearing), rev’d on other grounds, In re Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009, pet. filed) (<HOLDING>); Tenet Hosp., Ltd. v. Gomez, 276 S.W.3d 9,

A: holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension
B: holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation
C: holding that court must not view any one part of expert report or curriculum vitae in isolation
D: holding no jurisdiction when trial court granted extension even though appellants argued expert report was so woefully deficient on necessary elements so as to constitute no report and report was missing experts curriculum vitae
D.