## Facts

- Two-year-old Kevin Reynolds was brought to Decatur Memorial Hospital’s emergency room late at night after a fall at home, followed by abnormal breathing, fever, and loss of movement below the neck.
- Cervical spine X-rays were read as normal, and Kevin was admitted for observation under pediatrician Dr. Sharon Bonds.
- Around 2:00 a.m., Dr. Bonds telephoned neurologist Dr. Thomas Fulbright at his home to discuss Kevin’s condition.
- During the call, Fulbright asked whether Kevin had a stiff neck; Bonds checked and reported stiffness.
- Fulbright suggested a spinal tap to evaluate possible infectious or neurologic causes; the procedure was performed around 3:00 a.m.
- Bonds did not ask Fulbright to come to the hospital, examine Kevin, or assume care, and Fulbright did not agree to do so.
- Fulbright never met or examined Kevin, did not review records or tests, did not enter orders or chart notes, and did not bill for services.
- Kevin was later determined to have a severed cervical spinal cord and became quadriplegic.
- Kevin and his parents sued multiple defendants for medical malpractice, asserting that Fulbright owed Kevin a duty based on the telephone consultation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Fulbright on the ground that no physician-patient relationship (and thus no duty) arose from the call; plaintiffs took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a specialist’s informal telephone consultation with a treating physician—without examining the patient, reviewing records, accepting a consult, or otherwise undertaking care—creates a physician-patient relationship imposing a duty of care to the patient.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Dr. Fulbright.
- The court held the telephone call did not create a physician-patient relationship between Fulbright and Kevin Reynolds.
- Because no physician-patient relationship (or other qualifying special relationship) existed, Fulbright owed no duty of care to plaintiffs as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court.
- In medical malpractice, a physician’s duty is generally limited to situations involving a direct physician-patient relationship or a legally recognized special relationship.
- An informal, collegial “curbside” consultation—consisting of suggestions based solely on information relayed by the treating physician, without examination, records review, orders, chart participation, or agreement to treat—does not, by itself, establish a physician-patient relationship.
- Shared hospital affiliation or staff privileges, without more, does not create the special relationship required to impose a duty.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that a neurologist’s informal telephone advice to a treating pediatrician, absent any undertaking to diagnose or treat the child, did not establish a physician-patient relationship; therefore, the neurologist owed no duty and was properly granted summary judgment.


Reynolds v. Decatur Mem'l Hosp., 277 Ill. App. 3d 80, 660 N.E.2d 235 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)