
    Reynold JAMES v. A & B BUILDERS and Zurich-American Insurance Company.
    No. 2009 CA 0784.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Oct. 23, 2009.
    Joseph G. Albe, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Reynold James.
    Dr. Laurence M. May, Hammond, LA, Defendant-Appellee In proper person.
    Dr. Stephen G. Scully, Metairie, LA, Defendant-Appellee In proper person.
    Before PARRO, KUHN, and McDonald, jj.
   PARRO, J.

The claimant in this workers’ compensation claim filed a disputed claim against his former employer in connection with an injury to his right knee. When the employer raised an issue as to the nature of the claimant’s treatment, the claimant amended his claim to add five of his health care providers, including Dr. Stephen G. Scully and Dr. Laurence M. May, as defendants. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Administration, on its own motion, found that the claimant had failed to state a cause of action and a right of action against Drs. Scully and May and dismissed the claimant’s claims against them. The claimant appealed.

In light of the issues raised by the claimant’s former employer in a related appeal of a separate judgment on the merits of the compensation claim and considering our ruling in that matter, this appeal is moot. See Reynold James v. A & B Buiders, 09-0781 (La.App. 1st Cir.10/23/09), 29 So.3d 541. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in accordance URCA Rule 2-16.2(A)(3) at the claimant’s costs.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
      . A motion to consolidate by the claimant was denied as moot.
     
      
      . An appellate court, as a matter of judicial economy, has the authority to consider, ex proprio molu, the possibility of mootness of an appeal. See Chavers v. Chavers, 411 So.2d 490, 491 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982). A moot case is one which seeks a judgment or decree which, when rendered, can give no practical relief. Robin v. Concerned Citizens for Better Education in St. Bernard, Inc., 384 So.2d 405, 406 (La.1980). Appellate courts will not render advisory opinions from which no practical results can follow. See Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Government, 04—1459, 04-1460, 04-1466 (La.4/12/05), 907 So.2d 37, 55. Therefore, moot questions will not be considered on appeal. Chavers, 411 So.2d at 491; see LSA-C.C.P. art. 2164.
     