217 (Mo.Ct.App.1991). Both of these cases are distinguishable. ¶ 36. In Ballesteros, the doctor was not prohibited from treating patients who independently sought his services. Field, on the other hand, was enjoined from treating all patients in Lafayette County,. even if they independently sought his services. In Med. Specialists, Inc., the appellate court enforced the non-competition agreement, but only after finding that there were adequate infectious disease doctors to serve the area, and the enforcement of the provision would therefore not harm the public. ¶ 37. On the other hand, other jurisdictions have routinely refused to enforce non-competition compete agreements based on the same reasoning. See Valley Med. Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363, 982 P.2d 1277, 1283 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Hoddeson v. Conroe Ear, Nose, & Throat
holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that doctors conduct toward patient that does not come within penumbra of doctorpatient relationship cannot form basis for malpractice action recognizing the existence of the special relationship holding that doctors may limit the extent of their responsibility to patients by narrowing the scope of the doctorpatient relationship holding that provision would not be enforced due to that fact that the doctorpatient relationship is special and entitled to unique protection