delivered the opinion of the court:
Plаintiff, Adrienne Gathings, individually and as administrator for the decedent, Artrail Harvey, appeals the circuit court’s order granting a directed verdict for defendant, Doctor Jean-Wilson Muscadin, on plaintiffs wrongful death action. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in finding that defendant owed no duty to the decedent. We affirm.
The undisputed facts show that on June 26,1993, plaintiff brоught her 20-month-old son, Artrail, to Roseland Community Hospital to treat Artrail’s fever, overall weakness, and repeated vomiting. Artrail was admitted to the hospital under the care of Doctor Sales, a general surgeon.
On the evening of June 28, Doctor Sales decided to obtain a consultation with a pediatrician because he was uncertain as to the cause of Artrаil’s persistent vomiting. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Doctor Sales told the nursing staff to contact defendant to request a consultation. Defendant was a member of Roseland Community Hospital’s professional staff.
A nurse subsequently paged defendant and asked him to consult on Artrail’s case. Defendant, who was in Rockford, Illinois, for a meeting of a charitable organization, told the nurse that he was not “on call” and was unavailable to accept the consultation.
The following morning, Artrail suffered a cardiorespiratory arrest and died. An autopsy revealed thаt Artrail had died from complications from an undiagnosed bowel obstruction.
Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action based on medical malpractice, alleging that Artrail was not propеrly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner as a result of defendant’s failure to come to the hospital in response to Doctor Sales’ request for a consultation. A jury trial was held оn plaintiff’s second amended complaint. At the close of plaintiffs case, the court directed a verdict for defendant, finding that he owed no duty to Artrail. Plaintiff filed this timely appeal.
Dеfendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that plaintiff failed to provide an adequate record for the appellate court. The motion to dismiss is denied, as the reсord on appeal is sufficient for a determination of the propriety of the circuit court’s order.
The appellate court reviews de novo the circuit court’s order granting a directed verdict to defendant. Susnis v. Radfar,
In a negligence action for medical malpractice, plaintiff must prove a duty owed by defendant, a breach of duty, an injury proximately caused by the breach, and resultant damages. Reynolds v. Decatur Memorial Hospital,
In the present case, the undisputed facts show that dеfendant declined the consultation because he was out of town and not “on call.” In his conversation with the nurse, defendant did not take any information about Artrail, nor did he review Artrail’s reсords, recommend any treatment, or accept Artrail as a patient. Thus, the circuit court correctly found that defendant owed no duty to Artrail, as no physician-patient or othеr special relationship existed between them.
This case is similar to Reynolds. In Reynolds, a pediatrician examined a child who had become limp after falling off a couch. Reynolds,
Plaintiffs filed a medicаl malpractice action, alleging that the child’s quadriplegia resulted from Doctor Fulbright’s failure to properly diagnose him. Reynolds,
“A consensual relationship can exist where other persons contact the physician on behalf of the patient, but this is not a case in which Fulbright was asked to provide a service fоr [the child], conduct laboratory tests, or review test results. Fulbright did nothing more than answer an inquiry from a colleague. He was not contacted again and he charged no fee. A doctor who gives an informal opinion at the request of a treating physician does not owe a duty of care to the patient whose case was discussed.” Reynolds,277 Ill. App. 3d at 85 .
Similarly, in the present case, defendant did not provide a service for Artrail, conduct laboratory tests, or review test results. After his initial inquiry from the nurse, he was not contacted again and he charged no fee. Like Fulbright, defendant owed no duty to the patient. In fact, defendant’s argument that he owed no duty is stronger than Fulbright’s, as defendant never even gave an informal opinion but, rather, told the nurse that he was not “on call” and declined the consultation. Plaintiff cites Bovara v. St. Francis Hospital,
The decedent died during the angioplasty procedure. Bovara,
“The facts oí Reynolds are distinguishable. While the consulting physician in Reynolds just suggested a test and was not responsible for any portion of the patient’s diagnosis or treatment, [defendants] reviewed test results and interpreted them.” Bovara,298 Ill. App. 3d at 1030 .
The Bovara court also noted that, after reviewing the angiogram, defendants followed up by meeting with Doctor Pascale. At that meeting, they discussed Bovara’s history, after which the decision was made to recommend angioplasty. Bovara,
By contrast, in the present case defendant did not review test results or interpret them; unlike Bovara, defendant here was not in any way involved with the medical decisions made for Artrail. Accordingly, Bоvara is inapposite.
Next, plaintiff argues that the Roseland Community Hospital bylaws imposed a contractual duty upon defendant to treat Artrail. The hospital bylaws set forth the purposes and responsibilities of each member of the hospital staff, including that they provide “quality care” to all patients admitted to the hospital.
The hospital bylaws are apprоpriately considered in determining whether the standard of care was met. Reynolds,
Plaintiff cites an Arizona case, Hiser v. Randolph,
In conclusion, defendant owed no duty to Artrail as no physician-patient or other special relationship existed between them. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s order granting a directed verdict for defendant.
Affirmed.
BUCKLEY and GALLAGHER, JJ., concur.