## Facts

- Kameryn Kundert, a six-week-old infant, developed fever, poor feeding and sleep, and fussiness; his mother could not reach the pediatrician.
- The mother called Illinois Valley Community Hospital’s emergency department for advice and spoke with an unidentified emergency department employee.
- The employee allegedly stated the baby did not need immediate care, advised Tylenol and lukewarm baths while not knowing the proper infant dosage, and said the hospital was not equipped to care for infants; the employee advised seeing a pediatrician in the morning.
- Relying on the call, the mother did not bring the infant to the hospital that night.
- The next morning the pediatrician suspected sepsis/acute meningitis and sent the infant by ambulance to Illinois Valley, which provided emergent care and transferred him to a facility with pediatric capabilities.
- The infant was treated for bacterial meningitis but died about one to two weeks later.
- The estate and parents sued the hospital, alleging negligent handling of the phone call delayed treatment and caused death.

## Issues

1. Whether a telephone conversation between a parent and an unidentified emergency department employee created a physician–patient (or hospital–patient) relationship imposing a duty of care for the advice given.
2. Whether the complaint alleged facts showing the hospital knowingly accepted the infant as a patient in a clear and direct manner.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed dismissal of the negligence action.
- The court held the alleged phone interaction did not establish a physician–patient relationship because there was no clear and direct knowing acceptance of the infant as a patient.
- Without such a relationship, the hospital owed no duty of care regarding advice given during the call, and the complaint failed as a matter of law.
- The hospital’s later in-person treatment of the infant did not create or relate back to a duty arising from the earlier phone call.

## Legal Principles

- In Illinois medical negligence claims, duty generally arises only from a physician–patient (or hospital–patient) relationship.
- A physician–patient relationship is formed when a person knowingly seeks medical assistance and the provider knowingly accepts the person as a patient in a clear and direct manner.
- Informal or preliminary communications, including certain telephone discussions, do not create a treatment relationship absent knowing acceptance.
- Statements disclaiming ability to treat and directing the caller to seek care elsewhere are inconsistent with acceptance and weigh against finding a relationship.
- Subsequent treatment does not retroactively create a duty for earlier communications when the alleged negligence concerns only the earlier interaction.

## Conclusion

Because the complaint alleged only an informal telephone exchange with an unidentified emergency department employee and did not allege clear, direct knowing acceptance of the infant as a patient, no physician–patient relationship and thus no duty of care was established; dismissal was properly affirmed.


Estate of Kundert v. Illinois Valley Cmty. Hosp., 964 N.E.2d 670 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 2012)