Fla. Invalidates Enforcement of Certain Physician Noncompetes, Signaling a Shift in Laws
Consistent with steps taken by many other states that have invalidated noncompetes for health care providers, Florida's decision is significant because it signals an emerging shift toward a ban on noncompetes for physicians and potentially others.
May 06, 2020 at 05:55 PM
3 minute read
In 2019, Florida law shifted regarding physician related noncompetition agreements. The Florida legislature unanimously passed a law, that Gov. Ron DeSantis then promptly signed, that changed the legal playing field in physician-related noncompetition agreements. Basically, the statute invalidates physician noncompetes in counties where only one employer employs all the medical specialists in that county. Consistent with steps taken by many other states that have invalidated noncompetes for health care providers, Florida's decision is significant because it signals an emerging shift toward a ban on noncompetes for physicians and potentially others.
Historically, in Florida, noncompetes have been enforced so long as they had a reasonable scope in terms of geography and time, and supported a legitimate business interest. The newly enacted Florida Statute Section 542.336 purportedly addressed the negative impacts of the emerging trends in healthcare consolidation, which some argue have led to minimized access to specialists and increased costs. The statute clarifies existing Florida law on physician-related noncompetes and nullifies those that prohibit physicians from competing with their former employer if that employer employs, or otherwise contracts with, every other physician with that specialty in that county. Those noncompetes are void and unenforceable for three years after another employer competes in that county by offering services in the same specialty.
Proponents of the new law are seemingly pleased with this outcome, saying it will help increase patient choice and access as well as lower health care costs because of increased competition. Significantly, from a consumer perspective, the law also helps minimize situations where patients are unable to access their chosen doctors simply because their doctor moved to a new employer.
Indeed, these changes represent a marked departure from more rigid thinking toward enforcement of noncompetes and an emerging shift in the direction of health care law to ban noncompetes for physicians. And, just as important, it leaves open the question: what positions will be next?
As a next step, it would not be unreasonable to imagine that similar statutory changes would eventually apply to other healthcare professionals, including nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, or other mental health professionals. These changes would be in line with the American Medical Association's long-standing Code of Ethics advising doctors against signing covenants that restrict competition. Specifically, the AMA guidance provides that doctors "should not enter into covenants that: unreasonably restrict the right of a physician to practice medicine for a specified period of time or in a specified geographic area on termination of a contractual relationship; and do not make reasonable accommodation for patients' choice of physician."
There is no doubt that the modification to Florida Statute Section 542.336 will have impactful ramifications on the health care industry as well as on the future of noncompetes in health care and other professionals that should follow. In today's highly competitive environment, and in a state that already encourages competition, further eroding of the noncompete statutes is inevitable. The only question is how and when.
Luis Suarez is a shareholder with Heise Suarez Melville in Coral Gables. He focuses his practice on litigation of high-risk business and contractual disputes. Contact him at [email protected].
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
© 2025 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 AllTurning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being
5 minute readTrending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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