[brief] To be enforceable, the geographic scope of the restrictive covenant must not “foreclose resort to the services of the ‘departing’ physician by those of his patients who may otherwise desire to seek him out at his new location. ”  *Karlin v. Weinberg*, 77 N.J. 408, 424 (1978).  Covenants that “are excessive in geographic scope or duration, or if they fail to make a reasonable accommodation of patients’ choice of physician” are unreasonable.  *Community Hospital Group v. Moore*, 183 N.J. 36, 57 (2005) (quoting A.M.A., E-9.02:Restrictive Covenants and the Practice of Medicine).  [...] simplistically measures each [...] location from a specific [...] location to establish a “no practice” zone but that measurement disregards the aggregate geographic scope of the restrictions.  The restriction is a twenty (20) mile radius, but when you aggregate that 20-mile radius from all seven (7) of [...] locations, they all overlap and form a massive Restricted Area that is 3,721 square miles and stretches from eastern Pennsylvania all the way to the Atlantic Ocean.  This expansive Restricted Area will leave [...]’s patients stranded unless they begrudgingly travel unreasonable distances, and across state lines, to continue their treatment with him.  [...] acknowledges this issue and offers a solution that [...]’s patients can simply continue their treatment with [...], who they contend is as equally qualified as [...].  That contention misses the point.  The Restrictive Covenant cannot be so vast that it forces [...]’s patients to settle on continuing their treatment with a different doctor.  It is axiomatic that a restrictive covenant will be found unreasonable if it disrupts existing doctor-patient relationships.  Karlin, 77 N.J. at 424; see also Community Hospital, 183 N.J. at 47.  Here, because the Restricted Area covers the entire width of the State of New Jersey as well as the easternmost counties of Pennsylvania where [...] resides, and because many hospitals and medical practices require on-call physicians to be within a 30–60-minute commute of the medical facility, enforcement of the Restrictive Covenant as is would unreasonably limit and, in all likelihood, entirely preclude [...] from practicing medicine in the State of New Jersey.  (Pa8-9).  The result of that, at best, would be a total disruption of [...]’s current patient relationships and, in all probability, at worst, would result in the termination of those relationships unless his patients resort to traveling to another state to continue their treatment with him.  This is precisely the kind of Restrictive Covenant that Karlin and Community Hospital dictate to be unreasonable and unenforceable.  Courts have upheld a ten (10) mile restriction as reasonable under certain circumstances.  But a covenant that establishes a no practice zone of 20 miles, with an aggregate Restricted Area of 3,721 square miles is unreasonable because it prevents [...] from practicing in New Jersey, which is where most, if not all, of his patients reside.  Because of that breadth, the restrictive covenant becomes a restriction on competition, not a covenant designed to protect a legitimate business interest.  The effect of the Restrictive Covenant, plain and simple, is the improper elimination of competition.  As such, geographic restrictions should not be enforced.  D.