1. A Florida court upheld a temporary injunction against a cardiovascular surgeon for violating non-compete and non-solicit provisions in his employment contract with First Coast Cardiovascular Institute, P.A.
2. FCCI had plans to expand its practice in Putnam County, Florida and had made investments to deepen its relationship with Putnam County Medical Center.
3. Dr. Ansaarie was recruited by FCCI in 2014, and was marketed to patients and referral sources, as well as taking on a medical director position at PCMC. – The non-compete provision was enforceable because FCCI had substantial relationships with specific customers and customer goodwill associated with a specific geographic location.
– The non-solicit provision was enforceable because FCCI had substantial relationships with specific customers and customer goodwill associated with an ongoing business or professional practice.
– Dr. Ansaarie’s argument that the restrictive covenant provisions were not enforceable was not upheld by the court. – FCCI had a legitimate business interest in enforcing the non-compete provision, as shown by the substantial relationships with specific clients and customer goodwill associated with their geographic location.
– Clients specifically requested to transfer their files to Dr. Ansaarie, demonstrating FCCI’s substantial relationships with existing patients.
– FCCI presented evidence of goodwill relating to physician referral sources and substantial investments in developing its customer base and goodwill in Putnam County, particularly at the PCMC.
– Dr. Ansaarie did not challenge the two-year time limitation or the five-mile radius of the non-competition provision, which are generally considered reasonable under Florida law.
– The ruling suggests that narrowly tailored non-competes (such as a 5-mile radius) are generally enforceable against physicians whose primary duties involve seeing patients on behalf of their employer. – Non-competes and non-solicits are different. The court found that breaching a non-compete was enough to issue an injunction, even if there was no evidence of soliciting specific patients.
– The physician only fought the restrictive covenants based on FCCI’s legitimate business interest in enforcing them, without seeking counterclaims.
– FCCI did not delay in seeking enforcement of the agreement, which was crucial in the court’s decision. – Cantrell Astbury Kranz, P.A. is a litigation boutique that focuses on non-compete and unfair competition disputes, employment law, and business disputes throughout Florida and Georgia.
– Their practice areas include business disputes, breach of contract, partnership disputes, franchisor and franchisee issues, securities and FINRA matters, defamation, libel, slander, sexual harassment, non-competes, unpaid commissions, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, family and medical leave act, and executive compensation.
– The law firm is structured into practice groups, including serious personal injury, commercial litigation, and employment law. They can be reached at 1-877-858-6868.
Florida Court Explains Enforcement of Non-Compete Against Physicians
Leave a Reply