agree to .treat Mrs. West. Dr. Huxol’s “involvement” with Mrs. West’s case was limited to his telephone conversation with Dr. West, in which they had a “brainstorming session” about how Dr. West might be able to stabilize Mrs. West’s airway to allow her to be transported. (See Dr. Huxol Dep. [DN 56-7, 60-6] 34:9-35:19.) A physician-patient relationship can exist where other persons contact the physician on behalf of the patient, but this is not a case in which Dr., Huxol was asked to provide a service for Mrs. West, conduct laboratory tests, or review test results ll physician, consulted by emergency room physician oyer telephone, .did not form physician-patient relationship by expressing his opinion that patient should be transferred to another facility); Hill, 463 N.W.2d at 266-67 (<HOLDING>); Lopez v. Aziz, 852 S.W.2d 303, 305-07
holding that no physicianpatient relationship between doctor who gave informal opinion over telephone at request of treating physician and minor patient whose case was discussed and thus doctor did not owe duty of care to patient holding that fault may not be assessed against a patient in a medical malpractice action in which a patients negligent conduct provides only the occasion for the medical attention care or treatment which is the basis for the action where the defendant doctor was treating the plaintiff patient for injuries sustained in a car accident negligently caused by the plaintiff who was driving while intoxicated holding that doctor who was contacted by patients treating physician to discuss treatment alternatives does not owe duty of care to patient whose case is discussed such as would support medical malpractice claim holding that defendant medical center which allowed a patient who would likely cause bodily harm to his wife if he had the opportunity to leave the center for a weekend could be liable for the patients actions of killing his wife and her paramour during that weekend because inter alia when the course of treatment of a mental patient involves an exercise of control over him by a physician who knows or should know that the patient is likely to cause bodily harm to others an independent duty arises from that relationship and falls upon the physician to exercise that control with such reasonable care as to prevent harm to others at the hands of the patient punctuation omitted emphasis supplied holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa