Plаintiff appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) to defendant, Michaеl S. Barry, D.O., in this medical malpractice action. We affirm.
In this case, we are presented with the issue whether a doctor who is contacted by a. patient’s treating physician to discuss treatment alternatives
*371
owes a duty of care to the patient whose case is discussed. In a factually similar case,
Hill v Kokosky,
The patient gave birth to a child who suffered several medical problems. Plaintiffs alleged that the baby’s injuries were caused in рart by the defendants’ substandard advice to Dr. Hole during their telephone conversation and that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff for this alleged malpractice. This Court, nоting that in physician malpractice cases the duty owed by the physician arises from the рhysician-patient relationship, id. at 302, held that a physician-patient relationship does not arise from a treating physician’s solicitation of a colleague’s informal opinion on patient treatment. Id. at 303-304
In the present case, the decedent, Victoria Rountrеe, was admitted to Grand Traverse Community Hospital on July 8, 1991, by Sally Miller, D.O., with complaints of long-term diarrhea, weight loss, abdominal cramping, and fever. During Rountree’s hospitalization, Dr. Miller contacted Dr. Barry, who is a member of the internal medicine department of the hospital, on multiplе occasions to seek his opinion *372 regarding Rountree’s care based on the informаtion Miller related to him. Dr. Miller did not refer Rountree to Dr. Barry, 'and Dr. Barry did not contact Rountree or examine her, and at most reviewed the chart with Miller on one occasion.
Rountrеe died on August 31, 1991. Plaintiff alleges that Rountree’s death was caused in part by the substandard advicе offered by Dr. Barry to Dr. Miller and that Dr. Miller is liable to plaintiff for the alleged malpractice.
Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Hill on the basis that Dr. Barry had several consultations with Dr. Miller over a period. However, Hill does not indicate that the defendants had only one consultation with the treating obstetrician. Indeed, in its holding, the Court states that “the telephone conversations between Dr. Hole and defendants did not give rise to a physician-patient relationship between plaintiffs and defendants.” Id. at 304 (emphasis added).
Nonetheless, even if the holding in Hill had been based upon a sole telephone conversation, we would see no reason for distinguishing Hill from the present case simply because Dr. Barry engaged in multiple conversations with Dr. Miller. In Hill, in finding that a physician-patient relationship did not exist, the Court indicated that
[n]either defendant knew, examined, or spoke with plaintiffs. [The patient] was not referred to defendants for trеatment or consultation. Plaintiffs did not employ defendants, nor did they seek medical advice or treatment from defendants. Defendants’ medical opinions were addressed directly tо [the treating physician] as a colleague, and not indirectly to plaintiffs as patients. Thе opinions were not in the nature of a prescribed course of treatment, but were recommenda *373 tions to be accepted or rejected by Dr. Hole as he saw fit. [Id. at 304.]
Similarly, in the present case Dr. Barry’s opinions to Dr. Miller were simply recommendations that Dr. Miller was free to accept or reject. Dr. Barry did not agree to treаt the patient or to be a consultant on the case. Plaintiff points to an electrоcardiogram (ekg) reading that Dr. Barry provided for Rountree during the hospital visit as establishing a рhysician-patient relationship. However, plaintiff does not connect the ekg reаding, which was performed by Dr. Barry as part of his routine duties as a member of the department оf internal medicine, to the alleged consultations that are the subject of this malpractice action. No facts have been presented that can support a cоnclusion that a relationship ever existed between Dr. Barry and Rountree. Upon this record, it cannot possibly be found that Dr. Barry owed a duty of care toward Rountree that could subject him to liability. See also
Weaver v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents,
Affirmed.