With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Reynolds, 214 Ill.Dec. 44, 660 N.E.2d at 239. Dr. Huxol did nothing more than answer an inquiry from a colleague, Contrary to. Plaintiffs’ contention, Dr. Huxol “g[iving] suggestions to Dr. West as to treatment options” is not, without more, sufficient to give rise to a physician-patient relationship between Dr. Huxol and Mrs. West. See Hill v. Kokosky, 186 Mich.App. 300, 463 N.W.2d 265, 266-67 (1990) (a treating physician’s solicitation of a doctor’s informal opinion is not, without more, sufficient to give rise to a physician-patient relationship between the patient and doctor consulted). “A doctor who gives an informal opinion at the request of a treaG ing physician does not owe a duty of care to the patient whose case was discussed.” Reynolds, 214 Ill.Dec. 44, 660 N.E.2d at 239 (<HOLDING>); St. John, 901 S.W.2d at 424 (holding that

A: holding that the physicianpatient relationship terminated when the patient missed a scheduled appointment and did not see the physician again and that the relationship did not continue despite the fact the patient later secured a refill of a prescription that was prescribed during the relationship
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding that obstetrician who consulted with patients treating physician by telephone was not in physicianpatient relationship and therefore owed no duty to patient obstetrician did no more than answer professional inquiry of colleague and did not contact examine or treat patient
B.