by going just reviewing briefly the memorandum opinion in order by the trial court because viagra is the subject of all of the issues on this appeal it's not supported by adequate consideration that differences worked for a rheumatology for less than two years and no additional consideration was provided second there's no productive oil interests here care of patients who suffer from chronic pain and ailments dr claims this was recruited to join her here because she thought she would have the opportunity to help a practice grayle to build practice and to really apply her business hundred twenty days notice of terminations by either side so she gave the current hundred twenty days notice to protect her patients so their relationship deteriorated deteriorated after fifteen months and the employment terminated after dealer services which hired that a minimum of two years continued employment is required to constitute a substantial period of employment for a research department in force there was no additional consideration percent of the nation's treated by dr francis or not be friends with whom it had been your permanent relationship that specific testimony from the employer their patients who either followed dr francis from her previous employment or came through referrals this is not a medical practice to spend any money on marketing or any time on marketing or any time cultivating relationships with referring physicians in fact a third thing that was promised to dr francis was introductions to referring physicians and friends of the corporation at the hearing prarie could not identify a single referring physician to whom it introduce as came to perry and realized he was not doing any marketing so she set up a website for perry and for herself to attract patients she set up speaking engagements and some an hour so that she could build relationships in the community she contacted the hospital administration and asked them to send out email introductions to referred physicians they can't even identify who is referring physicians are at the hearing it produced publicly on variable website printouts of every single attending physician at the two hospitals as its referrals horses in this case period fail to follow through on its promises to dr francis and therefore there specifically held to be improper one of those factors is the fact that references resign from employment it's been very clearly held but that is not to be a factor in determining whether adequate consideration exists in an employment related res of that in a player doesn't even have to spend money to develop its practice in time working on developing good will and building relationships or a protect confidential information or process is there really a physician's office can open up maintain a monopoly and still have the same protection as other business who actually have to invest time and money in building their business in this own records they cannot be the reason the reason that we would enforce restrictive covenants is to protect the investments that businesses make in building themselves the investment that they make in their reputation for her patients she chose i wobbled because it was more economical for her as the record shows she got a nice contract with a nice salary with nice offices from his area the problem with the patients not being able to see dr francis was a result of dr francis deciding to open an office within the restricted area go to call based on the language of the  henson did not directly address the consideration issue one thing that he did point he did argue was that prayer he provided dr francis with all these things that access to patients and referral sources it's just not true essentially what they're saying is an employer doesn't have to keep its promises to the employees or doesn't have to perform its obligations under contract and that contract will still be enforced against the here it just doesn't exist at all and remy most importantly the injured of the public was found to be stuck on the employer's right now and keep saying this but based upon the employer's testimony there is not a there involving a medical practice where it's the employer who repeatedly emphasized the critical nature of continuity of care for their patients so yes these patients should be serving patients at the hospital and the court did find that this would cause a number of problems for the patients and the public at large unless you have any questions