Bitter Cancer-Care Fight Ends Up in Federal Court
21st Century Oncology, the state's largest provider of radiation oncology services, is asking a federal judge to block the state from enforcing a new law that would retroactively ban noncompete contracts the company entered into with five physicians.
July 01, 2019 at 01:23 PM
4 minute read
A bitter battle between doctors and a major cancer-care company that led to last-minute maneuvering in the Legislature is now heading to federal court.
21st Century Oncology, the state's largest provider of radiation oncology services, is asking a federal judge to block the state from enforcing a new law that would retroactively ban noncompete contracts the company entered into with five physicians.
The company filed the lawsuit Thursday, naming Attorney General Ashley Moody and Secretary of State Laurel Lee as defendants. The company is seeking a temporary restraining order that would suspend the disputed part of the law and a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing it. The provision was tucked into a broader health-care bill in the waning days of the session.
“The last-minute addition appears to be a targeted attempt to invalidate existing non-compete agreements for a specific group of physicians,” one of the motions said.
Attorneys argue that the new law violates federal and state constitutional protections to enter into contracts.
The lawsuit came months after a group of physicians sued 21st Century Oncology. The Fort Myers News-Press reported that the physicians contend “the cancer-care provider acts as a 'monopoly' by employing all radiation oncologists in Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties and, through restrictive contracts, prevents them from leaving and competing against them.”
The provision inserted in the new law (HB 843) retroactively bans no-compete clauses for Florida-licensed doctors who practice a medical specialty in a county where one company contracts with all the physicians who practice in that specialty. The law bans restrictive contracts for three years after a second company comes into the county and starts providing the care.
If not enjoined, attorneys for the company argued in the complaint, the law would allow the five physicians to “dramatically alter the substantive rights of the contracting parties by reaching back into the agreements, removing one of the key bargained-for provisions.”
21st Century Oncology operates multiple treatment centers. It is the largest provider of radiation oncology services in Florida, including in Lee County, where it is the only company currently providing the services.
Attorneys say there are nine physician contracts in Lee County that the company signed, including with four current employee-physicians and five former employee-physicians, that include restrictive covenants.
If not enjoined, 21st Century may be forced to reconfigure its health-care model, including physician employment, attorneys argued in the lawsuit.
The ban was tucked into one of several health-care bills that were negotiated behind closed doors. The bill, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, dealt with a number of issues that range from allowing patients to stay overnight at ambulatory surgical centers to limiting HMOs and insurance companies from using “step therapy protocols” for prescription drugs in certain circumstances.
21st Century Oncology isn't the only provider impacted by the legislation. It also will affect hospitals in rural counties that usually seek similar contracts with physicians.
Vince Sica, chief executive officer of DeSoto Memorial Hospital in Arcadia, told The News Service of Florida last month that the ban will further stress the rural provider's ability to offer reliable specialty health care.
“Eliminating rural hospitals' ability to negotiate terms for private contracts with physicians would bring into health care all the worst problems associated with 'free agency' in professional sports,” he said. “Rural communities already struggle to attract and retain physicians. “
R.D. Williams, CEO of Hendry Regional Medical Center in Clewiston, agreed.
“If we cannot enforce our contracts with physicians, it may very well put us in a position where we cannot maintain the services that our community needs,” he said.
Christine Sexton reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readGC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
Trending Stories
- 1These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 2'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 3Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 4Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 5Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250