In Christus Spohn Health System Corp. v. Rios, No. 13-05-00070-CV, 2005 WL 1039791 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi May 5, 2005, no pet.), the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order overruling their objections to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' expert report. While the appeal was pending, the plaintiffs asked the trial court to dissolve its prior order and grant them an extension to cure the deficiencies in the expert report. Id. The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion, vacated its prior order, and granted the plaintiffs an extension of time. Id. The defendants argued that the trial court's action violated Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.5 because it interfered with and impaired the effectiveness of the relief sought in the interlocutory appeal. Id. The court disagreed, noting that the trial court's new order granted the relief requested by the defendants: it stated that there was a deficiency in the expert report. Id. Nevertheless, the defendants argued that this relief was insufficient because they wanted a dismissal with prejudice. The court again disagreed, noting that the defendants could still have "the case dismissed with prejudice if the plaintiffs' 'cured' report is deficient." Id. And, "if the trial court rules that the 'cured' report is sufficient, the defendants may appeal the ruling and secure a dismissal with prejudice on appeal." Id. According to the court, "nothing in the trial court's dissolution order impairs or interferes with these rights." Id. Thus, the court held that the trial court's action did not impair the effectiveness of the relief sought. Id.