emergency room of the defendant hospital somebody whose identity we do not know a doctor a nurse or somebody who who presented themselves to this mother as a person with medical knowledge listen to her explain and describe the symptoms their baby was exhibiting they asked certain questions they answered her questions and they gave her medical advice she followed that medical advice which ultimately resulted in the death of her baby  the trial court found that because the plaintiff did not know the identity of the person in the emergency room who gave that medical advice there was how it was no duty there was no because there was no position for medical care provider patient relationship plaintiff argues that there absolutely is a duty that a relationship  if the hospital follows appropriate risk management procedures they know the identity of the person who gave that advice and they know when the call came in and they should have logged what advice was given we have found some cases elsewhere there's plenty of cases ever cited in our brief there's cases in many other jurisdictions which have found that the title phone call absolutely on its own stablish is a physician patient relationship if the if the doctor or nurse dispensed medical ones once you the doctor has listened to the patients complaints concerns symptoms and dispenses medical advice whether they've examined them talk to them are i mean done anything more than talk to them on the phone that is sufficient to establish a duty of care upon  them as related to the facts here the illinois cases even without going outside the jurisdiction curtain ronald's me to some cases all over to the contact between the physicians and the patient is the consults the doctor for it but once those those cards have have a meeting of the minds of the state that they're they're seeing medical information and medical information and medical advice is transmitted this i have this case this is the situation what do you think about this he he didn't the doctor in reynolds the primary defendant the physician didn't ask the patient whether he could consult the consulting positional didn't look at any test results or x rays or or any data leading to that patient's condition he just was talking to a co it's smith case where a doctor didn't consult with a with a with another doctor told patients he was going to consult call them in on a console to it was a normal console it wasn't just two doctors talking about a specific case it was the doctor contacting another doctor specifically to come in and consult on a case and proceed forward in treatment with  computer programs out there today that they walk a nurse through asking questions yes now and it's a matrix of information on computer programs that lead you to a certain mansouri once you get to a certain place they  say that there's a distinction between those two scenarios the lawyer at a cocktail party is different than calling the lawyer at his office for gratuitous advice because there is a case law that says once somebody calls you your in your office nurse about things within the realm of of what nurses do and no energy trains to do is different than you know even you might be a secretary have a high school education they're really just trying to do on so forth oh and by the way don't bring a baby here we can't take care of mom wow i would say that you find you're taking care of your god is he talking to be a person with minimal education on the phone and somebody sure is clear here is we have to look at this record this is a fairly limited run because judge in the room took this case right from the get go and said you know you can cut through all these things because we we've got to look at the idea of duty and that's the only room you don't know who you're talking with and you ask a question and the person tells you the following things and one of the things i like to add to his war council answer in her statement of facts everything the the issue here in this case comes down to to the fact that ratner then cutting into a very narrow wish you were the person asked a question and they were given or on board the advice and that's not what the relationship and they said it didn't in runnels because the person who was asked who would have been the physician in that relationship never conducted in the laboratory tests they never contacted the person again and one contact and that was through the other physician they never charged to feed so here we are back at work or to the situation in iran was the core of use those things to determine as a mantra was if there was no physician patient relationship on real hospital services to the plaintiffs while they were at the hospital this was an issue of whether someone who didn't am direct contact with the person still providing the services and they said this person conducted laboratory tests they review the test because the phone rang in this case as well as her talk about the usual special relationship because console of players counsel it's talked about the fact that this trial had been born in the hospital and maybe some other  hospitals especially small community hospitals where they could be very large ones who rose in the community expect people to come to the emergency room where they signed in they fill out forms they they answer a series of questions then certainly it would resolve in november greg norman hospital there are taking a call from any money for any reason because they couldn't prove they had no they only means to deny it when someone claims anonymous aledo they don't know who they talk with the whole own they should do x y z and if it's bad enough for a community hospital who might be able to go and find out who was working on certain lines can you imagine what it would be to other hospitals in own way to hundreds of workers in hundreds of departments with no real way to do that so i think we have to look at it from that standpoint i think the illinois law is clear enough without all the decision by this court adopting certain standards that might may or may not occur in other states when the path of illinois he says talk about a real relationship between the partners between physicians and their patients things like charging a fee or giving here a checking guess go to the inference of whether she had a right to believe but the person she was talking with knew with they were saying and she relied upon it at this point all i can take are who are the facts and they are left of the person relied upon and then followed up and hospitals that issue goes back to the notion of risk management procedure there's being instituted in the hospital knowing telephone calls what time they came in who took the call and what happens within that call that's the way to avoid certain problems and to define the issues in case like this where maybe even mother didn't ask who knows why she doesn't know the identity of the person didn't know you can match up the telephone the time the telephone call with the telephone log and in the in the emergency room well you never know where to we need to get the emergency room lock to see if there is such a thing to see who  see rooms seeking advice and if you're calling an emergency room it's an urgent situation typically and you're not going to can i have your name and i have your employee number you're not going to know if we know we had named you know nurse x as a defendant and i think we would have gotten past six fifteen at least gotten to some discovery where we could we could you know both sides could put this together  you know match these allegations that are in our complaint with some recordkeeping by the hospital on the other hand it is it reasonable for people to call an emergency room get somebody on the phone because they have an urgent situation and not have that hospital that doctor that nurse held to duty of reasonable  if you fools if you follow my opponent's argument any telephone and vice dispensed from an emergency room in a hospital no duty will attach there is no duty of care an to whether they were compensated is one factor i want and one piece of evidence that goes to answering the question but i don't think that that is is the linchpin of be of the answer i think it's is a plethora of information that's available out there abolished the legal ramifications of giving erroneous medical advice via a view to the one in europe your own web that well in this particular instance it's after hours and her doctor is not available it's she's not answering the phone she's unavailable and this is where she has hospital privileges which is of the purposes of pleading the you know the previous relationship with the hospital and the doctor his if that's why she chose to call this particular hospital because her doctor had privileges there and she had had some previous things there that's what motivated her to call her because she she had it you know in her line relationship i understand that each admission is a different relationship between a physician and a patient but from the patients point of view you have an ongoing relationship you go you go to the same hospital you go to where your doctor has privileges that's where you feel comfortable