Court Case Summary involving Non-Compete Clauses in the Health Care Industry
The Florida Supreme Court, in White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Florida, LLC, issued a decision on two consolidated cases that addressed enforcement of non-compete agreements by home healthcare companies against their former marketing employees. The specific holding was that home healthcare company referral sources, such as physician groups and hospitals, can be a protectable business interest under Florida’s non-compete statute. The Court went on to provide guidance applicable to all industries by elaborating on which types of business assets can justify enforcing non-compete or non-solicit agreements.
Background of Florida Non-Compete Law. Whether a court in Florida will stop someone from violating a restrictive covenant (e.g., non-compete and non-solicit agreement) is a two-step analysis. The second step of the analysis is whether the individual actually breached the terms of the restrictive covenant at issue. Before that, however, the first step is for the court to determine whether the restrictive covenant is even enforceable under the Florida non-compete statute. To that end, Florida Statute, 542.335, which provides the legal framework for analyzing the enforceability of restrictive covenants in Florida, requires a company to show that it has one or more “legitimate business interest” in enforcing the restrictive covenant.
The statute also states that “the term ‘legitimate business interest’ includes, but is not limited to” several categories of protectable business interests, such as (i) trade secrets, (ii) valuable confidential information, (iii) substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, (iv) certain types of customer goodwill, and (v) extraordinary or specialized training.
Court’s Holding. In White, the marketing representatives signed non-compete agreements that prohibited, among other things, soliciting their respective home healthcare companies’ referral sources for one year post-employment. In the home healthcare industry, referral sources, such as physician groups and hospitals, are the lifeblood of the business. That’s because those sources generally tell patients which home healthcare companies they should use. The marketing representatives in both cases eventually left to work for competing home healthcare companies and successfully solicited referral sources they had previously cultivated on behalf of their former employers. It was undisputed they breached the terms of their non-compete. They both argued, however, that their former employers did not have a legitimate business interest in preventing them from soliciting referral sources.
That argument was based, in large part, on the fact that Florida Statute, 542.335 does not specifically list referral sources as a legitimate business interest. The Florida Supreme Court unanimously rejected the marketing representatives’ arguments. The Court confirmed that the language “including, but not limited to” in the Florida non-compete statute implies that the list of legitimate business interest is non-exhaustive. Because of that, the statute did not prohibit the home healthcare companies from trying to protect their referral sources in the non-compete agreements. But the Court did not stop there. Importantly, the Court went on to stress that whether referral sources – or any other business asset – can justify enforceability of a non-compete or non-solicit depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In other words, the enforceability of a non-compete or non-solicit agreement is always context-driven. As a result, the Court remanded the cases back to the trial courts for those courts to determine whether the particular referral sources at issue should be considered a legitimate business interest. That determination, in turn, must be based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Lessons Learned. The Court’s ruling provides two immediate takeaways for companies and individuals with non-compete or non-solicit agreements:
Note:I tried my best in answering the question. It'd be appreciated if you leave an upvote. Thanks in advance.
Court Case Summary involving Non-Compete Clauses in the Health Care Industry
A court is unlikely to enforce the non-compete agreement Kelly and Amber signed because of which of the following clauses? a. Kelly agrees not to work for a competitor for two years. b. Kelly agrees not to work for a competitor within a 10-mile radius of Amber's business. c. Kelly agrees to go into a completely different line of work than Amber. d. All of these are correct.
In the Alternative Health Care case, what court case was used to defined dispensing medical marijuana pursuant to California law as 'trafficking' within the meaning of Sec. 280E? O A. CHAMP O B. Olive v. Commissioner O C. Altermeds O D. Canna Care, Inc.
When compared to non-health care industry, what makes the management of health care so unusual? Please identify at least two factors 0 FS O F3 6 2
QUESTION 23 Court A hears and decides a case involving a faulty product. Court B hears and decides a case involving a different faulty product. Which of the following best describes the affect stare decisis should have on these two cases? a. Since the products were different stare decisis will not apply b. Court B will follow the Court A decision, only if Court A is a higher court within the same jurisdiction. Court B will follow Court A decision,...
Assume a federal district court hears a case involving the commerce clause. The federal court would most likely apply Rational basis scrutiny Strict scrutiny Intermediate scrutiny Discretionary review
Landmark trials in medicine have influenced our approach to modern health care. Research the 1990 Supreme Court case involving Nancy Cruzan (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. What was the ethical dilemma in this case? How did it influence health care?
The earliest point at which a summary judgement can be issued in a court case is: A. After the defendant has filed their answer to the complaint with the court. B. During the pretrial conference C. At the beginning of the trial D. After the discovery phase.
#1. A New Mexico state court has to decide a case involving a legal issue that has never before been decided by its state courts. Arizona and Oklahoma have both decided cases on this issue. In reaching its decision, the New Mexico court can ignore the law in either or both states if it wants to. True or False #2. If the parties in a lawsuit decide to either negotiate or mediate their case they give up their right to...
Health care is a unique industry because the consumer does not pay for health care true false
Research an example of an intellectual property court case. Provide a 4- to 6-sentence summary of the case, key players, and the subsequent ruling.