and did nothing more than "prevent [Dr.] Norlund from practicing his livelihood." Id. We noted that as long as Dr. Norlund did not contact any of the specified optometrists previously mentioned, then Dr. Faust had no protectible interest. Id. We reasoned that "[If there is no protectable interest involved, an employer may not forbid an employee to subsequently work in his profession in such a large area." Id. Similarly, we have found covenants not to compete that restrict an employee from working in any capacity for an employer's competitor or from working within portions of the business with which the employee was never associated to be unreasonable because such restrictions extend beyond the seope of the employer's legitimate interest. See, e.g., Sharvelle, 836 N.E.2d at 437-438 (<HOLDING>); Pathfinder, 795 N.E.2d at 1114 (holding that
recognizing an individuals right of privacy in the content of health records and noting that health records are the property of the health care entity maintaining them holding that a doctor was qualified under daubert to give an expert opinion on standard of medical care based on thirty years of experience as a practicing boardcertified cardiologist and his review of the medical records holding claim that negligent supervision caused assault was health care liability claim because it was inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided holding that covenants prohibition on the employeedoctor from practicing health care of every nature and kind was unreasonable where the doctor had been employed to practice in the specialty of ophthalmology holding that removal of suit against physicians employed by a federally funded community health center to federal court by the defendants on the ground that they were covered under the public health service act was improper as the department of health and human services had not yet made a determination whether defendants should be deemed to be employees