between doctors which limit patient choice and are therefore against public policy. In Iredell Digestive Disease Clinic, P.A. v. Petrozza, 92 N.C.App. 21, 373 S.E.2d 449 (1988), aff'd per curiam, 324 N.C. 327, 377 S.E.2d 750 (1989), the court refused to enforce a non-competition agreement where the doctor to be enjoined from practice was only one of two gastroenterologists in' the area. Given the particular facts of this case, we believe the public’s interest in adequate health care must predominate over the parties’ freedom to contract ... The doctor-patient relationship is a personal one and we are extremely hesitant to deny the patient-consumer any choice whatsoever. 373 S.E.2d at 455. See also Statesville Med. Group, P.A. v. Dickey, 106 N.C.App. 669, 418 S.E.2d 256 (1992) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 38. Other jurisdictions have struck down
holding that the court cannot by splitting up the territory make a new contract for the parties holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy holding provision unenforceable as against public policy where the written employment contract was signed by both parties based on reasonable consideration and reasonable as to time and territory restrictions holding physicians covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void as a matter of public policy holding that an arbitration award based on the conclusion that unappended waiver forms are unenforceable pursuant to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because as stated in schultz it is not based on an allegation that a specific provision in an insurance policy contravenes public policy