DERRICK JEROME ALLEN v. BATON ROUGE GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL (2026)

Derrick Jerome Allen appeals the trial court's judgment that sustained a peremptory exception raising the objections of no cause of action and res judicata and dismissed all of Mr. Allen's claims against Baton Rouge General Medical Center (“BR General”) and the Custodian of Healthcare Information at BR General (“Custodian”) with prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Allen is a prisoner in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DPSC”) and is currently housed at Rayburn Correctional Center. While in DPSC custody, Mr. Allen allegedly suffered severe second-degree burns and was transported to BR General for emergency treatment and surgery. Mr. Allen alleged that after a ten-day hospital stay, he was prematurely released/discharged from BR General before he was healed properly and had not completely recovered from his burns, injuries, and an ear infection, which caused him to suffer injuries.

Mr. Allen filed a “Petition for Damages & Medical Malpractice” on October 10, 2023, against BR General; the Medical Director of BR General (“Medical Director”); the Medical Director of BR General's Burn Unit (“Burn Unit Director”); the Custodian; an unnamed insurance company; and an unnamed doctor (collectively, “Defendants”). See Docket Number C-739,178, Section 30, Nineteenth Judicial District Court (“19th JDC”), Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. Mr. Allen asserted claims for medical malpractice and sought damages. He claimed Defendants breached their duty of care and that their negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries. He alleged BR General negligently trained and supervised its employees. He further claimed that BR General was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees. Pertinent herein, Mr. Allen alleged that Defendants refused to allow him to obtain his medical records, which he claimed prohibited him from being able to prove Defendants’ negligence/medical malpractice.

BR General filed an “Answer to Petition for Damages & Medical Malpractice” on December 8, 2023. BR General generally denied Mr. Allen's allegations and denied any negligence or fault on its part or that of its employees or agents. BR General maintained that Mr. Allen's medical records constituted the best evidence of his complaints, treatment, care, and dates of admission and discharge and denied any allegations inconsistent with those records. BR General further contended that any injuries or damages sustained by Mr. Allen were not caused by any negligence or fault attributable to BR General or its employees or agents. BR General also asserted several affirmative defenses.¹

The Medical Director, the Burn Unit Director, and the Custodian filed an “Answer to Petition for Damages & Medical Malpractice” on January 24, 2024. They generally denied Mr. Allen's allegations, denied any negligence or medical malpractice, and asserted several affirmative defenses.² They also objected to the vagueness or ambiguity of the petition and further claimed Mr. Allen had no right of action and no cause of action to file this lawsuit.

Mr. Allen filed an “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages & Medical Malpractice” on January 26, 2024. His amended petition again alleged BR General negligently trained and supervised its employees. Mr. Allen further alleged that BR General did not give him all of his prescribed medications. The amended petition also alleged Mr. Allen was denied a room in the burn unit despite the severity of his burns.

In response to Mr. Allen's claim that he was not provided with his certified medical records, Defendants filed an “Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.” Defendants argued Mr. Allen's petitions failed to state a valid cause of action under any applicable federal or state law with regards to the production of documents. Defendants alternatively moved for partial summary judgment on all of Mr. Allen's claims for the production of medical records, arguing there were no genuine issues of material facts as to those claims because BR General had already provided Mr. Allen with a certified copy of his complete medical records.

The trial court held a hearing on Defendants’ “Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” on May 28, 2024. In a judgment signed on July 25, 2024, the trial court sustained Defendants’ peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action as to Mr. Allen's federal law claims regarding his requests for medical records but allowed Mr. Allen thirty days to amend his petitions to state a cause of action. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Mr. Allen's state law claims regarding his requests for medical records and dismissed all of Mr. Allen's “[s]tate [l]aw claims based on his alleged request for medical records from [BR General], and as contained in his various pleadings,” with prejudice.³

On June 26, 2024, Mr. Allen filed a second “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages.” All of Mr. Allen's claims in his second amended petition related to/arose out of BR General's alleged failure to provide him with a copy of his medical records within the delays set out in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). As to his federal law claims regarding his requests for medical records, Mr. Allen alleged that after he mailed a request for his medical records and asked for the cost of his complete medical file, BR General sent him a medical release to fill out, which he claimed he completed. Mr. Allen also claimed a lawyer for BR General forwarded him a medical release to complete, which he claimed was done. Mr. Allen alleged BR General did not give a cost to obtain his complete medical records, nor how many pages comprised his complete medical records. Mr. Allen alleged BR General discriminated against him (and had a policy of discrimination) because he was an incarcerated Black man without medical insurance. However, Mr. Allen also stated that he did in fact receive a free copy of his certified medical records from BR General. Mr. Allen claimed he allegedly did not receive all of his medical records, and that as to the records he did receive, Mr. Allen claimed he did not receive them timely. Mr. Allen requested the cost for his complete medical records, which he argued BR General failed to give him at the urging of its counsel.

On August 16, 2024, Mr. Allen filed a “Motion for Preliminary Judgment by Default” arguing that Defendants failed “to plead, answer, or respond” to his second amended petition. The trial court denied Mr. Allen's “Motion for Preliminary Judgment by Default” in a judgment signed on August 21, 2024.⁴

On August 22, 2024, BR General and the Custodian ⁵ filed a “Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata.”⁶ BR General and the Custodian argued Mr. Allen failed to show any legal basis to support a cause of action against BR General for an alleged failure to timely provide him with a copy of his medical records. Furthermore, BR General and the Custodian argued that Mr. Allen's claims against the Custodian raised in his petitions or arising out of his medical records requests were barred by res judicata as the trial court had dismissed all of Mr. Allen's claims against the Custodian in a judgment signed on July 25, 2024. Mr. Allen did not file an opposition to BR General and the Custodian's “Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata.”

Following a hearing held on March 6, 2025, the trial court signed a judgment on March 6, 2025, and sustained the exception of no cause of action; sustained the exception of res judicata; and dismissed all of Mr. Allen's claims raised against BR General and the Custodian in his second “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages” (filed June 26, 2024) with prejudice.

Mr. Allen now appeals the trial court's March 6, 2025 judgment.⁷

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Assignment of Error No. 1

In his first assignment of error, Mr. Allen argues that the record on appeal is incomplete such that he will not receive a “proper and fair review on appeal.” As specifically outlined in his appellant brief,⁸ Mr. Allen contends that the record on appeal lacks these documents: (i) the transcript of a hearing held on May 28, 2024; (ii) his written motion to appeal the trial court's decision(s) rendered at the May 28, 2024 hearing; (iii) the transcript of a hearing held on October 31, 2024; and (iv) his written motion to recuse a trial court judge.

Mr. Allen also stated “the transcript of the hearing on the defendants’ exception is not part of the record[.].” Despite his claim, the transcript of the March 6, 2025 hearing on BR General and the Custodian's “Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata” is included in the record on appeal, and this court will review that transcript in deciding this appeal.

An appeal is taken by obtaining an order therefor, within the delay allowed, from the court which rendered the judgment. An order of appeal may be granted on oral motion in open court, on written motion, or on petition. This order shall show the return day of the appeal in the appellate court and shall provide the amount of security to be furnished, when the law requires the determination thereof by the court. La. C.C.P. art. 2121.

Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2164, an appellate court must render its judgment upon the record on appeal. The record on appeal is that which is sent by the trial court to the appellate court and includes the pleadings, court minutes, transcript jury instructions, judgments, and other rulings, unless otherwise designated. See La. C.C.P. arts. 2127 and 2128. The record shall be prepared by the clerk of the trial court from which the appeal is taken. La. C.C.P. art. 2127; Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1 and Rule 2-1.16. The parties may designate, in writing, portions of the record to constitute the record on appeal, as provided by law. La. C.C.P. art. 2128; Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.17. A record on appeal which is incorrect or contains misstatements, irregularities or informalities, or which omits a material part of the trial record, may be corrected even after the record is transmitted to the appellate court, by the parties by stipulation, by the trial court, or by the order of the appellate court. All other questions as to the content and form of the record shall be presented to the appellate court. La. C.C.P. art. 2132. If the appellate court determines that it cannot undertake a proper analysis of the case on appeal without additional pleadings and/or transcripts, the court may require that additional pleadings and/or transcripts be supplemented into the record.⁹ Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.17. Local Rule 5 of the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit lists the documents to be included in an appeal record:

A. Notwithstanding Uniform Rule 2-1.17, and regardless of whether or not a designation is made, the following items shall be included in the civil appeal record:

1) Petitions-original, supplemental, and/or amending naming all parties

2) Answers and cross-pleadings

3) Signed pauper order, if claimed

4) Any judgment dismissing a party or parties to the suit

5) Signed judgment complained of and reasons (transcribed oral or written), if any

6) All notices of judgment

7) Motions for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict

8) Disposition of new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict motions

9) Notices of new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict dispositions

10) Motion(s) and signed order(s) of appeal

11) Notice of return date and/or proof and date of cost paid

12) Designation(s) of the appellate record, if filed

13) Motion and signed order of consolidation, if consolidated

14) Minute entries required by Rule 2-1.5

Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2164, a “transcript” is part of the record that may be reviewed by this court on appeal. See Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.9. Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:961.2(B)(1) provides that “[w]hen a transcript is requested by a litigant, the court reporter or deputy court reporter shall be paid in advance and shall furnish such transcript within thirty days of payment.” The clerk of the court from which an appeal is taken is not required to deliver the transcript of the record of the case before his fees for preparing the same have been paid. La. R.S. 13:4532. If an appeal record lacks a transcript that an appellant avers is pertinent to an issue raised on appeal, the inadequacy of the record is attributable to the appellant. See Byrd v. Pulmonary Care Specialists, Inc., 2016-0485 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/16), 209 So.3d 192, 196; see also Rover Group, Inc. v. Clark, 2018-1576 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/12/19), 291 So.3d 699, 707, writ denied, 2020-00101 (La. 3/9/20), 294 So.3d 481.

The appellant bears the burden of furnishing the appellate court with a record of the proceedings below. Miller v. Dicherry, 2020-0365 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/24/20), 316 So.3d 477, 480. Prior to the submission of the case for decision, any party may move to supplement the record with any omitted items upon showing that the items are material to a decision in the case. Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.11. Additionally, the appellant may designate by written notice filed with the trial court the portions of the record that the appellant desires to constitute the record on appeal. La. C.C.P. art. 2128; Miller, 316 So.3d at 480. Again, any inadequacy of the record is imputed to the appellant. Rover Group, 291 So.3d at 707.

All records and supplemental records prepared for filing in any appellate court shall be certified and dated by the clerk upon completion. The certification shall include the date any transcript was received for inclusion in the record. La. C.C.P. art. 2127.1(A). All transcripts or parts thereof completed for inclusion in the record shall be dated and certified by the court reporter who prepares them. La. C.C.P. art. 2127.1(B). Each court reporter assigned to prepare any transcript designated to be transcribed and necessary to complete the record shall deliver the transcript to the clerk of the trial court with the duty of preparing the record for appeal no later than five days before the return day. La. C.C.P. art. 2127.2(A).

At the outset of litigation, the trial court granted Mr. Allen's motion to proceed in forma pauperis; the pauper order is included in the record on appeal.¹⁰

(i) Transcript of May 28, 2024 hearing

Mr. Allen is correct that the record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the May 28, 2024 hearing. The record on appeal does, however, contain a minute entry for the May 28, 2024 hearing. The minute entry shows that the trial court held a hearing on Mr. Allen's “Motion to Compel Discovery” (filed January 19, 2024) and his “Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment” (filed March 1, 2024). Also on May 28, 2024, the trial court heard Defendants’ “Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” (filed March 27, 2024), as well as a “Motion for Summary Judgment” on admissions filed by the Medical Director, the Burn Unit Director, and the Custodian (filed March 18, 2024). The record on appeal contains those pleadings, the attachments thereto, and the orders setting those matters for hearing on May 28, 2024. The May 28, 2024 minute entry shows that the trial court ruled as follows:

Motion to Compel deemed as moot. This matter was submitted to the Court with argument. As to Exception of No Cause of Action, the Court granted said motion and will allow plaintiff to amend petition. As to Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court granted said motion. As to Motion for Summary Judgment of Admissions, the Court granted said motion. As to plaintiff[’]s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finding general [sic] issue[s] of material fact, denied said motion. Judgment to be signed accordingly upon submission by defendants[’] counsel.

The record on appeal contains three judgments memorializing the trial court's oral rulings made at the May 28, 2024 hearing. First, the record on appeal contains a judgment signed by the trial court on June 13, 2024, that denied Mr. Allen's “Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment.” Next, the record on appeal contains a judgment signed by the trial court on July 25, 2024, which sustained Defendants’ exception of no cause of action as to Mr. Allen's federal law claims regarding his requests for medical records, but allowed Mr. Allen thirty days to amend his petitions to state a cause of action. In that same judgment, the trial court also granted Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Mr. Allen's state law claims regarding his requests for medical records and dismissed all of Mr. Allen's state law claims based on his alleged request for medical records from BR General with prejudice. Third, the record on appeal contains a judgment signed by the trial court on July 25, 2024, that granted the “Motion for Summary Judgment” on admissions filed by the Medical Director, the Burn Unit Director, and the Custodian, and which dismissed all of Mr. Allen's claims against those defendants with prejudice.

In Mr. Allen's motion for this devolutive appeal (filed March 24, 2025), he stated: “Plaintiff desires to appeal devolutively from the [j]udgment rendered in open court on March 6, 2025.” In his motion for this appeal, Mr. Allen did not appeal nor did he reference the May 28, 2024 hearing, any oral rulings made at that hearing, nor any of the judgments rendered in accordance with the trial court's oral rulings made at that hearing. Likewise, in his appellant brief filed at this court, Mr. Allen did not assign error to any of the trial court's oral rulings made at the May 28, 2024 hearing, nor any of the judgments rendered in accordance therewith. Therefore, none of the trial court's oral rulings made during the May 28, 2024 hearing, nor any of the judgments rendered in accordance therewith are before this court in this appeal. See Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3 and Rule 2-12.4. Accordingly, we find that the transcript of the May 28, 2024 hearing is not necessary for this court to decide this appeal because none of the rulings made during the May 28, 2024 hearing and memorialized in judgments rendered subsequent thereto are relevant to the judgment on appeal in this appeal (which is the March 6, 2025 judgment).

Moreover, the record on appeal does not indicate that Mr. Allen requested a transcript at the conclusion of the May 28, 2024 hearing, which he claims is missing, or that the May 28, 2024 hearing from which he claims the transcript was purposefully omitted was ever transcribed for any reason. There is nothing to show that Mr. Allen or defense counsel ever requested that the May 28, 2024 hearing be transcribed and filed into the record.

If Mr. Allen was concerned that the record on appeal lacked the transcript of the May 28, 2024 hearing and believed that the transcript of that hearing was pertinent to an issue raised by him in this appeal, the omission of that transcript from this record is attributable to him. See Byrd, 209 So.3d at 196. As the appellant, it was Mr. Allen's duty to request that the 19th JDC clerk of court include that transcript in this record on appeal. See La. R.S. 13:961.2(B)(1) and La. R.S. 13:4532; see also Miller, 316 So.3d at 480. Mr. Allen also had the option to designate the record on appeal to include the transcript of the May 28, 2024 hearing. See La. C.C.P. art. 2128; Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.17; see also Miller, 316 So.3d at 480. Or, once the record on appeal was prepared and Mr. Allen discovered that the May 28, 2024 transcript was not included therein, he could have requested that the trial court supplement the record on appeal with the May 28, 2024 hearing transcript.¹¹ See La. C.C.P. art. 2132; Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.11 and Rule 2-1.17.

(ii) Written Motion to Appeal the trial court's rulings made on May 28, 2024

In his appellant brief, Mr. Allen argues that the inclusion of the May 28, 2024 transcript was necessary because he “orally asked to appeal said decision, and also forwarded a written motion to the court, which is not part of the record on appeal.”

Mr. Allen is correct that the record on appeal does not contain a written motion to appeal the trial court's oral rulings made on May 28, 2024, or to appeal any of the judgments rendered in accordance therewith. The minute entry for the May 28, 2024 hearing does not show that Mr. Allen made an oral motion to appeal. [Compare that minute entry with the minute entry for the March 6, 2025 hearing, which expressly noted, “Plaintiff made an oral motion to appeal[,] which was noted for the record.”].

This court will presume the appellate record is correct as submitted, absent substantial proof of alteration or a stipulation by all counsel to the contrary, where the court reporter certifies that the transcript is a true and correct transcript of the proceedings, and the deputy clerk of the court certifies that the appellate record contains all the pleadings, documents, and evidence. La. C.C.P. art. 2127.1; Karagiannopoulos v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 94-1048 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/10/99), 752 So.2d 202, 208, writ denied, 99-2866 (La. 12/10/99), 752 So.2d 165, and writ denied, 99-3474 (La. 2/11/00), 754 So.2d 940.

Mr. Allen fails to offer any proof as to inaccuracies or omissions in the record on appeal. There is no evidence Mr. Allen ever made an oral motion or filed a written motion to appeal the trial court's oral rulings made on May 28, 2024, or any of the judgments rendered in accordance therewith. The clerk of court for the 19th JDC certified that the record on appeal is a true copy of the original record and includes all the pleadings, evidence, and documents in this case (Docket Number C-739,178, Section 30, 19th JDC, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana).

(iii) Transcript of a hearing held on October 31, 2024

In his appellant brief, Mr. Allen contends that the transcript of a hearing held on October 31, 2024, is not part of the record on appeal. Mr. Allen is correct that the record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the October 31, 2024 hearing. The record on appeal does, however, contain a minute entry for the October 31, 2024 hearing. The minute entry shows that the trial court set BR General and the Custodian's “Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata” (filed August 22, 2024) for hearing. The record on appeal contains that pleading, the attachments thereto, and the order originally setting that matter for hearing on October 31, 2024. The October 31, 2024 minute entry shows that the trial court took the following action: “Whereupon, for oral reasons assigned, the Court ordered the matter reassigned for Exception Hearing on 12/16/2024[.]”

Based on the minute entry, the trial court did not make any oral rulings on October 31, 2024. In Mr. Allen's motion for this devolutive appeal (filed March 24, 2025), he stated: “Plaintiff desires to appeal devolutively from the [j]udgment rendered in open court on March 6, 2025.” In his motion for this appeal, Mr. Allen did not appeal any rulings made at the October 31, 2024 hearing—none were made—nor did he reference the October 31, 2024 hearing in his motion for appeal. Accordingly, we find that the transcript of the October 31, 2024 hearing is not necessary for this court to decide this appeal because that hearing has no relevance to the judgment on appeal in this appeal (which is the March 6, 2025 judgment).

Moreover, the record on appeal does not indicate that Mr. Allen requested a transcript at the conclusion of the October 31, 2024 hearing, which he claims is missing, or that the October 31, 2024 hearing from which he claims the transcript was purposefully omitted was ever transcribed for any reason. There is nothing to show that Mr. Allen or defense counsel ever requested that the October 31, 2024 hearing be transcribed and filed into the record.

If Mr. Allen was concerned that the record on appeal lacked the transcript of the October 31, 2024 hearing and believed that the transcript of that hearing was pertinent to an issue raised by him in this appeal, as the appellant, it was his duty to request that the 19th JDC clerk of court include the transcript in his record on appeal. See La. R.S. 13.-961.2(B)(1) and La. R.S. 13:4532; see also Miller, 316 So.3d at 480. Mr. Allen also had the option to designate the record on appeal to include the transcript of the October 31, 2024 hearing. See La. C.C.P. art. 2128; Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.17; see also Miller, 316 So.3d at 480. Or, once the record on appeal was prepared and Mr. Allen discovered that the October 31, 2024 transcript was not included therein, he could have requested that the trial court supplement the record on appeal with the October 31, 2024 transcript. See La. C.C.P. art. 2132; Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.11 and Rule 2-1.17.

(iv) Written motion to recuse a trial court judge

In his appellant brief, Mr. Allen contends that he “filed a Motion to Recuse the judge off the case, and such is not made part of the record in this matter.” Attached to Mr. Allen's motion for this devolutive appeal (filed March 24, 2025) are documents showing that Mr. Allen filed a motion to recuse the trial court judge in (at least) two other cases docketed at the 19th JDC: (1) Docket Number C-528,560; and (2) Docket Number C-504,018.

The instant appeal is taken from Docket Number C-739,178. There is no evidence in the record on appeal that Mr. Allen filed a motion to recuse the trial court judge in this matter, Docket Number C-739,178. Accordingly, we find that any motions to recuse the trial court judge filed by Mr. Allen in other docketed cases pending in the 19th JDC are not relevant to the issues presented in this appeal and, therefore, need not be considered by this court in resolving this matter.

Conclusion

Given the clerk of court's and court reporter's certifications and absent any proof of inaccuracies or omissions, we must presume the appellate record before us is correct. Accordingly, this court is unable to conclude that the certified record on appeal is incorrect, contains misstatements, or omitted any documents.

Assignment of Error No. 2

In his second assignment of error, Mr. Allen argues that the trial court erred “when it made rulings and was divested of jurisdiction.” Mr. Allen argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction to rule on BR General and the Custodian's “Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata” because the trial court was divested of jurisdiction over this matter when Mr. Allen appealed the trial court's August 21, 2024 judgment that denied his “Motion for Preliminary Judgment by Default” (filed August 16, 2024).

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2088(A) provides, in pertinent part:

The jurisdiction of the trial court over all matters in the case reviewable under the appeal is divested, and that of the appellate court attaches, on the granting of the order of appeal and the timely filing of the appeal bond, in the case of a suspensive appeal, or on the granting of the order of appeal, in the case of a devolutive appeal.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2088(A) also contains a list of specific actions over which a trial court retains jurisdiction in a case after the filing of an order of appeal. The phrase “all matters in the case reviewable under the appeal” has been construed to mean that the trial court retains jurisdiction over all issues that are unaffected by the appeal, even issues not specifically enumerated in La. C.C.P. art. 2088. Waiters v. deVille, 2020-0556 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/30/20), 365 So.3d 544, 553, writ denied, 2021-00283 (La. 4/13/21), 313 So.3d 1249.

The denial of a motion for preliminary default is an interlocutory judgment that is not subject to appeal. See Allen v. Baton Rouge General, 2025-0478 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/16/26), ___ So.3d ___, ___, 2026 WL 1740888, *1. To contest an interlocutory judgment, a party must file an application for supervisory writs within thirty days of judgment. Allen, ___ So.3d at ___, 2026 WL 1740888 at *2. The record on appeal confirms that Mr. Allen appealed the trial court's August 21, 2024 judgment denying his “Motion for Preliminary Judgment by Default” instead of filing a supervisory writ application.¹² Thus, Mr. Allen employed the wrong procedural device when he filed an appeal of the trial court's August 21, 2024 judgment denying his “Motion for Preliminary Judgment by Default.” Because the denial of a motion for preliminary default is an interlocutory judgment, the proper procedural vehicle that should have been employed was a supervisory writ application. Since Mr. Allen could not appeal the trial court's August 21, 2024 judgment denying his “Motion for Preliminary Judgment by Default,” La. C.C.P. art. 2088 did not apply to divest the trial court of jurisdiction.

To the extent this court were to consider Mr. Allen's attempt to appeal the trial court's August 21, 2024 judgment denying his “Motion for Preliminary Judgment by Default” as an attempt by him to file a supervisory writ application, Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-4(A) provides, in pertinent part, that the “filing of, or the granting of, a writ application shall not stay further proceedings unless the trial court or the Court of Appeal expressly orders a stay.” Thus, when an order staying proceedings has not been issued, the trial court may proceed. Waiters, 365 So.3d at 553.

For these reasons, we find that trial court had jurisdiction to hear and rule on BR General and the Custodian's “Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata.”

Assignment of Error No. 3

In his third assignment of error, Mr. Allen argues he was denied due process of law under the United States Constitution and Louisiana State Constitution. Mr. Allen contends that he was denied access to the courts and retaliated against for attempting to compel the trial court to rule on his pleadings and for exposing crimes allegedly committed by Black judges in the 19th JDC and by Black employees of the clerk of court's office for the 19th JDC.

Appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time in this court, which are not pleaded in the court below and which the trial court has not addressed. Geiger v. State ex rel. Department of Health and Hosp., 2001-2206 (La. 4/12/02), 815 So.2d 80, 86. We have reviewed the record on appeal; specifically, Mr. Allen's “Petition for Damages & Medical Malpractice” (filed October 10, 2023); his “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages & Medical Malpractice” (filed January 26, 2024); and his second “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages” (filed June 26, 2024). In none of his petitions did Mr. Allen allege that he was denied due process of law and/or access to the courts. Furthermore, in none of Mr. Allen's petitions did he allege any claims that he was subjected to retaliation for seeking judicial action on his pleadings and reporting alleged misconduct by judicial and clerk-of-court personnel. Because Mr. Allen raised due process and retaliation for the first time on appeal and did not plead those claims in the trial court below, and because those claims have not been ruled on by the trial court, we will not consider those claims on appeal. See Geiger, 815 So.2d at 86.

Assignment of Error No. 4

In his fourth assignment of error, Mr. Allen agues the trial court erred when it sustained BR General and the Custodian's “Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata.”

No Cause of Action

BR General and the Custodian filed an exception of no cause of action as to Mr. Allen's second “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages” (filed June 26, 2024), which Mr. Allen filed in response to the trial court's judgment sustaining Defendants’ “Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” regarding all of Mr. Allen's claims against Defendants related to his requests for medical records. In sustaining Defendants’ “Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,” the trial court allowed Mr. Allen to amend his petition to state a viable cause of action as to his federal law claims regarding his requests for medical records from BR General.¹³ Defendants argued that Mr. Allen's second “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages” (filed June 26, 2024) failed to state a cause of action under any applicable federal or state law.

As used in the context of the peremptory exception, a cause of action refers to the operative facts that give rise to a plaintiff's right to judicially assert an action against a defendant. Touchet v. McGehee, 2024-1283 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/15/25), 418 So.3d 438, 453. The exception of no cause of action is used to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition. Touchet, 418 So.3d at 453. The purpose of the exception of no cause of action is not to determine whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail at trial, but to only ascertain if a cause of action has been pled. Touchet, 418 So.3d at 453. No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert: the exception of no cause of action. La. C.C.P. art. 931. The court is confined to the four corners of the petition. La. C.C.P. art. 931; Touchet, 418 So.3d at 453. The exception is triable on the face of the pleadings, and, for purposes of resolving the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true. The issue at the trial of the exception is whether, on the face of the petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought. Touchet, 418 So.3d at 453.

In reading a petition to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, it must be interpreted, if possible, to maintain the cause of action instead of dismissing the petition. Any reasonable doubt concerning the sufficiency of the petition must be resolved in favor of finding a cause of action has been stated. Touchet, 418 So.3d at 454. However, the petition must set forth material facts upon which the cause of action is based. La. C.C.P. art. 891(A); Touchet, 418 So.3d at 454. The correctness of conclusions of law is not conceded for the purposes of ruling on an exception raising the objection of no cause of action. Touchet, 418 So.3d at 454.

The burden of demonstrating that a petition fails to state a cause of action is on the mover. Touchet, 418 So.3d at 454. Because the exception raises a question of law and the trial court's decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition, a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action is reviewed by an appellate court de novo. Touchet, 418 So.3d at 454.

As noted supra, the trial court dismissed all of Mr. Allen's state law claims based on his alleged request for medical records from BR General as alleged in his various petitions with prejudice in the judgment signed on July 25, 2024. As this appeal addresses the March 6, 2025 judgment, any state law claims related to his request for medical records are not before us; therefore, we examine whether Mr. Allen stated a viable cause of action as to his federal law claims regarding his requests for medical records from BR General.

In his second “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages” (filed June 26, 2024) Mr. Allen alleged that his requests for a copy of his medical records were ignored by Defendants. He also claimed that the alleged failure to provide the records was the result of discrimination by BR General and the Custodian against Mr. Allen “because he is of the [B]lack race, was a[n] inmate in prison, and didn't have paid medical insurance[.]”

Federal law establishing a right of a patient or his representative to receive a copy of medical records is contained in regulations promulgated under HIPAA, found at 45 C.F.R. § 160.300, et seq. Specifically, 45 C.F.R. 164.524 provides that an individual has a right of access to inspect and obtain a copy of protected health information in a designated record set, with some exceptions. HIPAA sets forth the requirements for requesting, accessing, and the fees required to obtain medical records. HIPPA does not, however, provide a private cause or right of action for enforcement of its protections. See Lewis on Behalf of Lewis v. Cornerstone Hospital of Bossier City, LLC, 53,056 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/25/19), 280 So.3d 1262, 1271.

HIPAA does not contain any express language conferring privacy rights upon a specific class of individuals. Instead, it focuses on regulating persons that have access to individually identifiable medical information and who conduct certain electronic health care transactions. 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-1; Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 2006). HIPAA provides both civil and criminal penalties for improper disclosures of medical information. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d-5, d-6; Acara, 470 F.3d at 571. However, HIPAA limits enforcement of the statute to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d-5, d-6; Acara, 470 F.3d at 571. Because HIPAA specifically delegates enforcement, there is a strong indication that Congress intended to preclude private enforcement. Acara, 470 F.3d at 571.

Although Mr. Allen further alleged in his second “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages” (filed June 26, 2024) that BR General's failure to provide his medical records was discriminatory, neither HIPAA nor its implementing regulations create a private cause of action for an alleged violation of the right of access to medical records. In particular, 45 C.F.R. § 164.524 creates a right of access to protected health information, but it does not create a separate cause of action for discriminatory denial of that access. Furthermore, HIPAA violations, including violations of the right-of-access provision, are enforced administratively through Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights, rather than through a private suit for damages. See 45 C.F.R. §§ 160.306 and 160.312; see also Acara, 470 F.3d at 571-72. Accordingly, Mr. Allen's characterization of BR General's alleged failure to provide his medical records as discriminatory does not provide him with a private right of action under HIPAA. We therefore find that Mr. Allen has not stated a cause of action under federal law regarding his requests for medical records from BR General.

Res Judicata

BR General and the Custodian also filed an exception of res judicata as to all of Mr. Allen's claims made against the Custodian arising from Mr. Allen's requests for medical records. BR General and the Custodian argued that all such claims were dismissed with prejudice when the trial court sustained Defendants’ “Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” in the judgment signed by the trial court on July 25, 2024. As to the Custodian, BR General and the Custodian argued that the trial court dismissed Mr. Allen's claims against the Custodian in the July 25, 2024 judgment that granted a “Motion for Summary Judgment” on admissions (filed March 18, 2024) in favor of the Medical Director, the Burn Unit Director, and the Custodian and dismissed the Medical Director, the Burn Unit Director, and the Custodian as Defendants from Mr. Allen's lawsuit with prejudice. BR General and the Custodian also argued that the trial court sustained Defendants’ “Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” regarding all of Mr. Allen's claims related to his requests for medical records under state law and that Mr. Allen failed to amend his petition to state a valid cause of action under federal law. Therefore, BR General and the Custodian argued Mr. Allen is now precluded from asserting any claims against the Custodian regarding requests for medical records from BR General.

Codified in La. R.S. 13:4231, res judicata generally precludes the relitigation of claims arising out of the same facts and circumstances between the same parties of a previous suit in which there is a valid, final judgment. Prejean v. Rodrigue, 2025-0538 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/24/26), ___ So.3d ___, ____, 2026 WL 1113743, *5, writ denied, 2026-00672 (La. 9/22/26), ___ So.3d ____, 2026 WL 2836306. The chief inquiry in determining whether res judicata applies is whether the second action asserts a cause of action that arises out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first action. Prejean, ___ So.3d at ___, 2026 WL 1113743 at *5. Thus, at its core, res judicata envisions a second lawsuit. It does not apply in a case where there is no second suit, but merely judgments of the trial and appellate courts within the same suit. Prejean, ___ So.3d at ___, 2026 WL 1113743 at *5.

Based on the foregoing, res judicata is not the proper procedural principle to determine whether Mr. Allen is barred from raising claims against the Custodian arising from his requests for medical records. None of the elements set forth in La. R.S. 13:4231 and the accompanying jurisprudence are met. At its core, res judicata envisions a second suit. Here, there is no second suit, merely judgments within the same suit. The law-of-the-case doctrine, as opposed to res judicata, is the proper procedural principle for describing the relationship between prior judgments by trial and appellate courts rendered within the same case. Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. IP Petroleum Co., Inc., 2016-0230 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/12/17), 219 So.3d 349, 365-66, writ denied, 2017-00915 (La. 10/9/17), 227 So.3d 833. Therefore, since res judicata does not apply to Mr. Allen's claims against the Custodian regarding requests for medical records from BR General, we find the trial court erred in sustaining BR General and the Custodian's exception of res judicata as to all of Mr. Allen's claims made against the Custodian arising from Mr. Allen's requests for medical records. See Prejean, ___ So.3d at ___, 2026 WL 1113743 at *5.

However, although Mr. Allen asserted claims against the Custodian arising from his requests for medical records in his second “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages” (filed June 26, 2024), the trial court subsequently dismissed the Custodian from the lawsuit with prejudice in a judgment signed on July 25, 2024. The trial court's July 25, 2024 judgment granted a “Motion for Summary Judgment” on admissions (filed March 18, 2024) in favor of the Medical Director, the Burn Unit Director, and the Custodian and dismissed those defendants from the lawsuit with prejudice. It is a final judgment of dismissal. La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A). Once the trial court signs a valid, final judgment dismissing a defendant entirely from a lawsuit, all pending claims against that defendant are dismissed, including claims asserted in an amended petition filed prior to rendition of the judgment of dismissal. See La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A); La. C.C.P. art. 1673; La. R.S. 13:4231(2). Cf. Vance v. Edwards, 2023-0016 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/30/23), 377 So.3d 710, 713-14, writ denied, 2024-00005 (La. 2/27/24), 3 79 So.3d 1266, and Templet v. Johns, 417 So.2d 433, 435 (La. App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 420 So.2d 981 (La. 1982) (petitions could not be amended with respect to an already-dismissed defendant, as the suit against that defendant was terminated by a judgment of dismissal).

Based on the foregoing, although the trial court erred in sustaining BR General and the Custodian's exception of res judicata, Mr. Allen is nevertheless precluded from pursuing any claims against the Custodian arising from his requests for medical records.

DECREE

We affirm the portion of the trial court's March 6, 2025 judgment that sustained the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action filed by Baton Rouge General Medical Center and the Custodian of Healthcare Information at Baton Rouge General Medical Center and dismissed all of Derrick Jerome Allen's claims raised in his second “Amended & Re-Instated Petition for Damages” (filed June 26, 2024) against Baton Rouge General Medical Center and the Custodian of Healthcare Information at Baton Rouge General Medical Center, with prejudice.

We reverse the portion of the trial court's March 6, 2025 judgment that sustained the peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata filed by Baton Rouge General Medical Center and the Custodian of Healthcare Information at Baton Rouge General Medical Center

Given Derrick Jerome Allen's pauper status, we decline to assess appeal costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

FOOTNOTES

1.   BR General alleged that Mr. Allen's own contributory or comparative negligence caused or contributed to his alleged injuries and damages. BR General contended that Mr. Allen failed to follow his healthcare providers’ instructions, advise his providers of changes in his condition, report his symptoms and medical problems, and otherwise act as a reasonable person under the circumstances. BR General additionally asserted that Mr. Allen failed to mitigate his damages and that any recovery should be reduced to account for the comparative fault of Mr. Allen or third parties. BR General also alleged that Mr. Allen's injuries resulted from an act of God and sought a setoff for any unpaid medical services, supplies, or expenses provided during his treatment at BR General.

2.   The affirmative defenses pled by the Medical Director, the Burn Unit Director, and the Custodian in their answer were the same as those raised by BR General in its answer.

3.   In a separate judgment also signed on July 25, 2024, the trial court granted a “Motion for Summary Judgment” on admissions in favor of the Medical Director, the Burn Unit Director, and the Custodian (filed March 18, 2024) and dismissed the Medical Director, the Burn Unit Director, and the Custodian as Defendants from the lawsuit with prejudice.

4.   Mr. Allen appealed the trial court's August 21, 2024 judgment denying his “Motion for Preliminary Judgment by Default.” This court dismissed his appeal. See Allen v. Baton Rouge General, 2025-0478 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/16/26), ___ So.3d ___, 2026 WL 1740888.

5.   Although it had been dismissed from this lawsuit in a judgment signed on July 25, 2024, the Custodian was named with BR General as a defendant in the filing of the exception of res Judicata.

6.   For ease of reference, we hereinafter refer to the peremptory exception raising the objections of no cause of action and res judicata as an “exception of no cause of action” and “exception of res Judicata.”

7.   The clerk of court mailed notice of judgment to the parties on March 13, 2025. Mr. Allen filed a motion for devolutive appeal on March 24, 2025. The trial court signed the order of appeal on April 3, 2025, notice of which was transmitted by the clerk of court to the parties on May 1, 2025.

8.   At the time this appeal was lodged (2025 CA 0747), Mr. Allen had another appeal already pending at this court (2025 CA 0478). Both appeals arose out of the same trial court docket number: Docket No. C-739,178 at the 19th JDC. Upon lodging, this court's clerk of court's office discovered that it had erroneously included information from the other appeal on this appeal's notice of lodging, which may have created unintentional confusion for Mr. Allen as to which judgment was on appeal in each appeal, specifically as related to the filing of briefs. In consideration thereof, this court ordered its clerk of court's office to include a copy of Mr. Allen's appellant brief filed on December 16, 2025, in the other appeal (2025 CA 0478), as a “supplemental brief’ filed in this appeal (2025 CA 0747). See Allen v. Baton Rouge General Medical Center, 2025-0747 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/30/26) (unpublished action).

9.   Generally, the appellant shall be responsible for any cost associated with transcribing additional portions of the record not originally included in a designated record, and any cost associated with supplementing the record with the additional pleadings and/or transcripts. Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.17.

10.   A prisoner who seeks to bring a civil action or file an appeal or writ application in a civil action without prepayment of fees or security shall comply with all requirements for proceeding in forma pauperis. La. R.S. 15:1186(A)(1). Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 5183(A)(1), a person who wishes to proceed in forma pauperis shall apply to the court for permission to do so in his first pleading, or in an ex parte written motion if requested later, to which the applicant shall annex his affidavit tha the applicant is unable to pay the costs of court in advance, or as they accrue, or to furnish security therefor, because of the applicant's poverty and lack of means, accompanied by any supporting documentation.

11.   In his appellant brief, Mr. Allen requested “the supplement of the record.” However, a request to supplement the record is more properly directed to the trial court. See La. C.C.P. arts. 2132 and 2088(A)(4).

12.   Although Mr. Allen filed an appeal within the delay for filing a supervisory writ application, this court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to review the trial court's August 21, 2024 judgment denying his “Motion for Preliminary Judgment by Default.” Allen, ___ So.3d at ___, 2026 WL 1740888 at *2.

13.   In sustaining Defendants’ “Exception of No Cause of Action and/or Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” as to Mr. Allen's state law claims regarding his requests for medical records, the trial court dismissed all of Mr. Allen's state law claims based on his alleged request for medical records as contained in his various pleadings, with prejudice, in the trial court's judgment signed on July 25, 2024.

EDWARDS, J.