Opinion
14-23-00647-CV
12-07-2023
MARK BURKE, Appellant v. KPH-CONSOLIDATION INC., D/B/A HCA HOUSTON HEALTHCARE KINGWOOD, A DOMESTIC FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, Appellee
On Appeal from the 234th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022-68307
Panel Consists of Justices Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Before the court is appellant's motion to waive the clerk's record fee. Appellant primarily contends that the payment he is required to make for the preparation and filing of the clerk's record is unconstitutional, denying him right of access to the courts. See Tex. Const. art. 1, § 13. Appellant has not provided any evidence to the trial court, or to this court, that he is indigent or otherwise cannot afford the fee for the preparation and filing of the clerk's record. See, e.g., Tex.R.Civ.P. 145 (setting out a mechanism for a party who cannot afford payment of court costs to proceed without paying court costs, by filing a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs with the trial court). Accordingly, we presently see no constitutional infirmity in appellant paying for the clerk's record in order to proceed with this appeal. Cf. Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Honorable Thirteenth Ct. of Appeals, 934 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. 1996) (acknowledging that rights of open access to courts protect "those who can[not] afford to pay the fees to get in").
In addition, appellant contends that being required to pay for the clerk's record violates his right to a fair and impartial tribunal for the trial and appeal of his dispute. However, as appellant cites no authority for this contention, we conclude he has waived that argument. See Gray v. Nash, 259 S.W.3d 286, 294 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2008, pet. denied) (acknowledging that parties can waive an argument through inadequate briefing, such as by "offering no citation to any authority to support [a] contention").
For the reasons discussed above, we deny appellant's motion to waive the clerk's record fee.