David J. Clark, Member of the Firm in the Litigation and Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practices, in the firm’s New York office, was quoted in Medscape, in “Docs Fight a Noncompete Clause and Lose. Could You Get Stuck Too?” by Alicia Ault. (Read the full version – subscription required.)
Following is an excerpt:
Four years ago, a lung cancer specialist felt that she wasn’t getting what she needed to competently conduct research at her teaching hospital. So she looked for and found a similar — and, she thought, better — position at a nearby academic medical center. The physician, who does not want to be named for this article, thought she was home free until her employer refused to release her from the noncompete clause in her contract.
Only after a year ― and some $75,000 in legal fees ― was the physician able to work unencumbered for the new teaching facility. But the months-long court battle convinced her husband, Francisco Aécio Almeida, MD, that noncompetes are bad medicine. He has since become a warrior against the clauses. …
Some states prohibit restrictive covenants against doctors, including California, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island. Texas’ Covenants Not to Compete Act says noncompetes must provide physicians with a list of patients seen within a year of the contract’s end; provide access to patients’ medical records; offer a buyout at a reasonable price; and let physicians provide continuing care to a patient during an acute illness after employment has been terminated.
Connecticut limits the duration of noncompete clauses to 1 year and stipulates a distance of up to 15 miles from the primary practice site, according to a 2018 report by David J. Clark, an, an employment law attorney with Epstein Becker Green in New York City.