Dr. Norlund informed one doctor that his wife's facility would consist of optometrists with whom he had developed relationships during his time with Dr. Faust. Id. at 1148. Also, Dr. Norlund contacted the area's optometrists and encouraged them to be independent of the local competing ophthalmologists. Id. Dr. Faust sought and received a preliminary injunction to enforce the covenant not to compete. Id. at 1145. On appeal, we held that Dr. Faust had a protectible interest in the good will created by Dr. Norlund on Dr. Faust's behalf. Id. at 1155. When reviewing whether the seope of activity restricted was reasonable, we upheld the portion of the covenant prohibiting Dr. Norlund from contacting any of the specified optometrists because 68 Ind.App. 647, 650, 344 N.E.2d 299, 302 (1976) (<HOLDING>). But see Unger, 771 N.E.2d at 1245 (holding
holding that employers knowledge of employees injury followed by the employers failure to provide the necessary medical services sufficient to impose liability upon the employer for medical services selected by the employee holding that a covenant not to compete that restrained the employee who worked at the management level of a cleaning and maintenance business and had gained the advantage of personal acquaintance with the employers customers from acting not only as a proprietor but also as an employee in furnishing janitorial services was unreasonable and beyond the seope of the employers legitimate interest of protecting its good will holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction holding that the employer had a protectible interest in its good will where the employee had direct contact with its customers and much of the employers business was repeat business holding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment for purposes of insurance coverage when the employee was simply sitting in his vehicle in his employers parking lot waiting for the business to open at the time the accident occurred