only to a hospital’s duty to ensure that all medical personnel permitted to provide services to FMH patients are qualified to do so. See Blanton v. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 319 N.C. 372, 376, 354 S.E.2d 455, 458 (1987) (“We hold that a reasonable man of ordinary prudence in the position of the hospital owes a duty of care to its patients to ascertain that a doctor is qualified to perform an operation before granting him the privilege to do so.”). They do not establish the degree of control necessary for agency. The remaining provisions cited by plaintiff constitute general policies detailing how the two businesses — FMH and Piedmont— would cooperate and coordinate their work. As such, they cannot support a finding of agency. See Hoffman, 114 N.C. App. at 251, 441 S.E.2d at 569 (<HOLDING>). We hold that the provisions in the agreements
holding that in order to recover damages under the lanham act plaintiff must prove that there was a violation that plaintiff has been damaged and that there is a causal connection between the violation and those damages holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding that the critical element in determining whether the provisions of the norrislaguardia act apply is whether the employeremployee relationship is the matrix of the controversy holding that general policy rules  are not indicative of that kind of control and supervision over the details of a physicians work that a plaintiff must show in order to prove that there was an employeremployee relationship holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute