Covenants Not to Compete in Physician Contracts

Journal of Legal Medicine

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 215-232

  Lowry, James W ^a  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HUMAN; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; NOTE; PATIENT RIGHT; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION PROCESS;

CONTRACTS; ECONOMIC COMPETITION; EMPLOYMENT; HUMANS; PHYSICIANS; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE LOCATION; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0042848805     PISSN: 01947648     EISSN: 1521057X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/713832153     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Arthur S. Di Dio, The Legal Implications of Noncompetition Agreements In Physician Contracts, 20 J. LEGAL MED. 457, 464 (1999). In the late 1990s only Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts had enacted statutes expressly invalidating restrictive covenants between physicians.
2. See, e.g., Jaraki v. Cardiology Assoc. of N.B. Arkansas, 55 S.W.3d 799 (Ark. App. 2001); MerchoRoushdi-Shoemaker-Dilley-Thoraco-Vascular Corp. v. Blatchford, 742 N.E.2d 519 (Ind. App. 2001); Schoos, 2001 WL 1530925; Prairie Eye Or. v. Butler, 768 N.E.2d 414 (111. App. 2002); Harris v. University Hosp. of Cleveland, Nos. 76724 and 76785, 2002 WL 363593 (Ohio App. Mar. 7, 2002); Mammana, 2002 WL 530188; Armstrong v. Cape Girardeau Physician Assocs., 49 S.W.3d 821 (Mo. App. 2001); Junkin v. Northeast Ark. Internal Med. Clinic, 42 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. 2001); Duneland Emerg. Physician's Med. Group v. Brunk, 723 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. App. 2000); Physician Specialists, 539 S.E.2d at 216.
3. See, e.g., Blatchford, 742 N.E.2d at 519; Mammana, 2002 WL 530188 (the duration in these cases was found to be unreasonable).
4. See generally Jarakt, 55 S.W.3d at 799; Blatchford, 742 N.E.2d at 519; Junkin, 42 S.W.3d at 432; Harris, 2002 WL 363593; Schoos, 2001 WL 1530925; Pnairie Eye Or., 768 N.E.2d at 414; Duneland Emerg. Physician's Med. Group, 723 N.E.2d at 963; Sidebottom, 7 S.W.3d at 542; Batchu, 16 S.W.3d at 340; Physician Specialists, 539 S.E.2d at 216. All of the covenants in these cases restricted the scope of the activity, but the court did not address the issue of scope or did not find the issue dispositive.
5. Valley Med. Specialists, 982 P.2d at 1279.
6. Valley Med. Specialists, 982 P.2d at 1277.