This appeal involves a dispute between Dr. H. Harris Pittman, a prominent neurosurgeon, and Coosa Medical Group, P. C. “CMG”, the practice he helped found. After Dr. Pittman left CMG to work for another employer, CMG sued Dr. Pittman seeking to enjoin him from violating the non-competition provisions of his employment agreement with CMG. The trial court granted CMG’s request for a temporary injunction. On appeal, Dr. Pittman claims that the trial court erred in granting injunctive relief because i CMG had no legitimate business interest in enforcing the restrictive covenants, ii CMG had released Dr. Pittman from the restrictive covenants, and iii CMG had consented and requested that Dr. Pittman practice neurosurgery in violation of the restrictive covenants. For the reasons set forth below, we find these arguments to be without merit and affirm. As a general rule, a trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny an interlocutory injunction, and this Court will not disturb the trial court’s decision absent manifest abuse of discretion. Further, where the trial court, in ruling on an interlocutory injunction, makes findings of fact based upon conflicting evidence, this court will not disturb the ruling as an abuse of discretion unless the denial or granting of the injunction was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. Citations and punctuation omitted. Westpark Walk Owners v. Stewart Holdings , 288 Ga. App. 633, 635 655 SE2d 254 2007. See OCGA § 9-5-8. “An interlocutory injunction is designed to preserve the status quo pending a final adjudication of the case, and in so doing, the trial court must balance the conveniences of the parties pending the final adjudication, with consideration being given to whether greater harm might come from granting the injunction or denying it.”
Citation and punctuation omitted. Bijou Salon & Spa v. Kensington Enterprises , 283 Ga. App. 857, 860 643 SE2d 531 2007. Although not controlling, the trial court may consider the merits in balancing the equities. Id. “Because evidence was presented on both sides of the issue, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the equities weighed in favor of CMG and that the status quo of not having competition by Dr. Pittman within the restricted area was preserved by the order.” Id. at 861.
