New Florida Statute May Void Physician Noncompete Agreements
Florida restrictive covenant agreements, whether standalone, contained in an employment agreement or as part of a medical practice purchase and sale agreement, are governed by Chapter 542, Florida Statutes.
October 22, 2019 at 10:45 AM
3 minute read
Florida restrictive covenant agreements, whether standalone, contained in an employment agreement or as part of a medical practice purchase and sale agreement, are governed by Chapter 542, Florida Statutes. Historically, noncompete agreements have been enforceable against physicians as long as the agreements were supported by a legitimate business interest and reasonably limited in geographical scope and time. Gov. Ron DeSantis, however, recently signed into law a new section of the statute that prohibits restrictive covenant agreements, and voids existing restrictive covenant agreements, for physicians who practice a "medical specialty" in a county where all physicians in that medical specialty are employed by the same entity or its affiliates.
Effective June 25, newly enacted Florida Statutes Section 542.336 prohibits a restrictive covenant agreement between a physician who practices a medical specialty, and an entity that employs or contracts with, either directly or through an affiliated entity, all physicians who practice the specialty within the same county. The law voids any existing physician noncompete agreements that meet this criteria. The new law also provides that the restrictive covenant shall remain void and unenforceable for a three-year period following the entry of a second employer to the market that, either directly or through related or affiliated entities, employs one or more physicians who practice the same medical specialty. The statute expressly states that such restrictive covenants are void and unenforceable because the agreements are not supported by a legitimate business interest and do not benefit patients, as they restrict access to physicians and increase the cost of health care. The law was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. See 21st Century Oncology v. Moody, No. 4:19-cv-00298-MW-CAS, 2019 WL 3948099 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2019).
The employer who challenged Section 542.336 after its enactment employed all nine of the radiation oncologists in Lee County, Florida. The court upheld the statute, which voided physician noncompete agreements contained in their employment agreements, stating that it is "well settled that access to affordable health care is a legitimate state interest" and that the "concentration and consolidation of physician services" has the potential to "both increase prices and raise problematic barriers to patients' access to treatment." The court expressly stated that the new law does not apply to family practice physicians.
Employers who, through one entity or its affiliates, employ all of the physicians practicing a medical specialty in one county, will be impacted by the enactment of this new law. As a result, companies buying or investing in a medical practice must determine whether the medical practice is the sole employer of physicians practicing that medical specialty in the county. If it is, Florida's new statute may impact the value of such purchase or investment as those physicians can no longer be subject to noncompete agreements.
Kelly-Ann Cartwright and Christine Fuqua Gay are attorneys with Holland & Knight in Miami. They represent employers on a broad range of employment and labor law matters.
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Largest Law Firms: Locations, Starting Salary and Clients By Firm
- 2Largest Law Firms: Firm Leadership and Practice Areas
- 3Largest Law Firms: New Jersey and Firmwide Attorney Count
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Marc Mandel, Senior Vice President & General Counsel at EXOS
- 5Florida Seeks to Short-Circuit Tech Fight
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