110 (1967) (applying the standard of “professional knowledge and skill ordinarily had by those who practice that branch of the medical art or science” where the plaintiffs spinal accessory nerve was severed during surgery). The application of the healthcare professional standard of care to a wide range of factual scenarios is not accidental. Our Supreme Court has described the standard for medical professionals as “completely unitary in nature, combining in one test the exercise of‘best judgment,’ ‘reasonable care and diligence’ and compliance with the ‘standards of practice among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities.’ ” Wall v. Stout, 310 N.C. 184, 193, 311 S.E.2d 571, 577 (1984) (emphasis added) (<HOLDING>). Part of the standard developed at common law
recognizing that the extent of the protection accorded a privacy right at common law rested in part on the degree of dissemination of the allegedly private fact and the extent to which the passage of time rendered it private holding that one claim was not preempted because it did not allege the violation of duties created by any welfare plan but a violation of duties as a past employer holding that when an employee had his duties changed but had no interest created or protected by the constitution or state law in those duties then no liberty interest claim was stated holding that the passage of section 902112 did not abrogate the duties of healthcare professionals created at common law holding that compliance with registration statute did not abrogate common law and statutory trademark law