Federal Judge Sides With Doctors in Cancer Contracts Dispute
A U.S. District Court judge denied a bid to block a newly enacted law that voided no-compete clauses, comparing the happenings at the state Capitol to the famed black-and-white horror movie “Creature from the Black Lagoon.”
August 22, 2019 at 12:31 PM
4 minute read
Siding with state lawmakers and doctors, a federal judge ruled against a major cancer center in the latest round of a bitter dispute between the treatment provider and its physicians.
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker denied a bid by 21st Century Oncology to block a newly enacted law that voided no-compete clauses placed in contracts of doctors who worked for the center.
In his ruling, Walker compared the happenings at the state Capitol to the famed black-and-white horror movie, “Creature from the Black Lagoon,” filmed at nearby Wakulla Springs.
But the judge said that lawyers for the center had not presented evidence to justify a preliminary injunction.
Walker’s refusal to block the law from going into effect does not mean that the legal tussle is over, but it is a significant setback for the cancer center.
A representative of 21st Century Oncology said the company had no comment on the ruling.
The cancer-treatment center was trying to put a hold on a law, passed by the Republican-dominated Legislature this spring, that retroactively bans no-compete clauses for 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 such restrictions for three years after a second company comes into the county and starts providing the care. 21st Century Oncology is the largest provider of radiation oncology services in Florida, including in Lee County, where it is the only company providing the services.
Walker noted in his ruling that the state statute doesn’t run afoul of federal law because it “serves a significant, legitimate public purpose.”
The law “is a significant impairment on plaintiff’s employment contracts, but not a total one,” the judge wrote.
The federal lawsuit challenging the Florida statute came months after a group of physicians sued 21st Century Oncology. The News-Press reported the physicians alleged that “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.”
Walker held an all-day hearing on the cancer center’s request for a preliminary injunction on Aug. 9.
At that hearing, attorneys for the cancer center had argued that the law didn’t serve a public purpose and was drafted at the behest of five physicians, including Michael Katin, who wanted to break their contracts with the cancer-treatment provider. Katin, who intervened in the case, worked for 21st Century Oncology until March.
The cancer center’s lawyers noted during the hearing that Katin established a limited liability company, called the Special Committee for Healthcare Reform, or SCHR, and hired a lobbyist to help pass the bill.
But Walker found that didn’t matter.
“Attempting to connect the dots, plaintiff contends these facts indicate [the law] was drafted by the lobbyist, acting on SCHR’s behalf, for the sole purpose of allowing the five physicians who left plaintiff’s employ to escape their noncompete agreements,” Walker wrote in his 23-page order. “At this stage, plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood [the law] serves an illegitimate private interest rather than a legitimate public purpose.”
While Katin’s lobbyist spoke in favor of the measure during a Senate committee meeting, Walker noted the committee “also heard from a different lobbyist who opposed the bill on the grounds it would have ‘an unnecessary impact on the ability of hospitals and others to contract’ and would result in ‘much litigation and many court decisions.’ ”
Katin issued a statement Wednesday praising the judge’s decision.
“These contracts force medical specialists to leave the county if they want to continue to practice medicine,” Katin said. “Patients are denied access to the physician of their choice when they leave. That is not in the public’s interest. Medical specialists are often in short supply in Florida counties.”
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 AllSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Families Settle Court Battle Over Who Owns Parkland Killer's Name, Likeness
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
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