Reynolds v. Decatur Memorial Hospital
Illinois Appellate Court
660 N.E.2d 235 (1996)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Kevin Reynolds (plaintiff) was a two-year-old boy who went to the emergency room at Decatur Memorial Hospital (defendant). Kevin’s mother said that he had fallen from a two-foot-tall couch, walked to her, and then gradually went limp. Kevin had a fever, breathing difficulties, and unresponsive muscles below his neck. However, cervical X-rays showed that his neck looked normal. Dr. Sharon Bonds examined Kevin and believed he might have an infection. At 2:00 a.m., Bonds called a neurologist, Dr. Thomas Fulbright (defendant), at home to discuss Kevin’s case. Fulbright asked Bonds whether Kevin had a stiff neck. Bonds checked Kevin’s neck and reported that it was stiff. Fulbright suggested that Bonds get a spinal tap to look for possible infectious diseases. Bonds did not ask Fulbright to see or treat Kevin. Fulbright often provided informal advice to his colleagues about neurological matters and testified that he thought of this call as an informal conference with Bonds. Fulbright did not view the call as providing medical care for Kevin and did not bill for it. Fulbright had no further contact with Kevin’s case. Bonds treated Kevin for a possible infection. However, Kevin had severed the spinal cord in his neck and became a quadriplegic. A lawsuit was filed on Kevin’s behalf, suing the hospital and Fulbright for medical malpractice. The trial court found that the call between Bonds and Fulbright did not create a physician-patient relationship between Fulbright and Kevin and, therefore, that Fulbright did not owe any legal duty of care to Kevin. Kevin appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McCullough, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.