RE: Restrictive covenants

[Guest guest]

Gordon,

I agree entirely. I had the pleasure of

sitting in on a Mayor’s meeting as he tried to figure out how to attract

and retain good physicians in our community. All three of the large hospital

systems were there. All three have at least 20 mile restrictive covenant

clauses. All three brag about how wonderful they are at attracting new

physicians to the area. In fact, one stated they are bringing in 23 new

physicians this year alone. What is not being discussed is why, with a

relatively stable population, you need to bring in 23 new physicians a year. The

reason of course, is that they treat their docs terribly and then when the docs

burn out, they pull out the restrictive covenant and force the docs to leave

town. Even more ironic is that in Virginia restrictive covenants are illegal. Most docs don’t know that

nor do they have the money to fight the battle in court for a year to prove the

point.

Restrictive covenants

Someone just posted that they're finally at the end of a seven year,

20 mile restrictive covenant and can do what they've been wanting to

do for a long time.

I don't agree with the philosophy behind restrictive covenants in the

first place, but this one really takes my breath away. Restrictive

covenants remind me of those nasty movies of the psychotic

husband/boyfriend: " I'd rather kill you than let you go. "

In an era of primary care physician shortage, why would a practice

feel compelled to invoke such a clause? I suspect it is a sign of a

deeply disturbed practice, a practice on such shaky ground that they

feel obliged to kill even the remote chance of " competition. "

There

is more than enough work for us all. Let my people go.

While not every state will honor these covenants, I would urge those

who feel compelled to enter into employment situations to remember

that there is a shortage of primary care docs, the potential employee

is in the driver's seat here, and I would strongly urge you to

eliminate ANY elements of covenant. If a potential employer won't

give it up, I'd think long and hard about an underlying philosophy of

health care that is antithetical to overall well being.

Gordon

[Guest guest]

Just curious - were you able to bring that up in the meeting, and then what did they say?LynnTo: From: drbrady@...Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:19:36 -0500Subject: RE: Restrictive covenants

Gordon,

I agree entirely. I had the pleasure of

sitting in on a Mayor’s meeting as he tried to figure out how to attract

and retain good physicians in our community. All three of the large hospital

systems were there. All three have at least 20 mile restrictive covenant

clauses. All three brag about how wonderful they are at attracting new

physicians to the area. In fact, one stated they are bringing in 23 new

physicians this year alone. What is not being discussed is why, with a

relatively stable population, you need to bring in 23 new physicians a year. The

reason of course, is that they treat their docs terribly and then when the docs

burn out, they pull out the restrictive covenant and force the docs to leave

town. Even more ironic is that in Virginia restrictive covenants are illegal. Most docs don’t know that

nor do they have the money to fight the battle in court for a year to prove the

point.

.

Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Share now!

[Guest guest]

,

I’ve received a different legal opinion on restrictive

covenants here in VA. It was that as long as the covenants are reasonable

in time and duration, they are enforceable. Twenty miles seems to stretch

the boundary of reasonable and 7 years is certainly beyond reasonable. Can

you give me the state code or judicial precedent that said they are illegal?

I agree that anyone signing a contract should think it through before signing a

restrictive covenant; but there may be times when it’s okay –

planning to move in a couple of years for instance. There was an excellent

article in FPM around the time of Gordon’s original article that was

written by lawyers and discussed the equity of several standard contract

clauses such as pay, benefits, malpractice tail, etc. in a nonadversarial

manner. I can see practices developing more enforceable restrictive covenants

with the rise of concierge medicine as established partners begin pulling

300-500 (out of their 3000 primary care patients) of the best paying and

usually healthiest patients from their former practice into their new practice.

This really leaves the remaining partners in a bind as they are now down

a doc with near the same patient load while their former “partner”

runs off to an easier, usually better paid job. This is exactly what

restrictive covenants are designed to prevent.

Straz

Charlottesville,

VA

Restrictive covenants

Someone just posted that they're finally at the end of

a seven year,

20 mile restrictive covenant and can do what they've been wanting to

do for a long time.

I don't agree with the philosophy behind restrictive covenants in the

first place, but this one really takes my breath away. Restrictive

covenants remind me of those nasty movies of the psychotic

husband/boyfriend: " I'd rather kill you than let you go. "

In an era of primary care physician shortage, why would a practice

feel compelled to invoke such a clause? I suspect it is a sign of a

deeply disturbed practice, a practice on such shaky ground that they

feel obliged to kill even the remote chance of " competition. "

There

is more than enough work for us all. Let my people go.

While not every state will honor these covenants, I would urge those

who feel compelled to enter into employment situations to remember

that there is a shortage of primary care docs, the potential employee

is in the driver's seat here, and I would strongly urge you to

eliminate ANY elements of covenant. If a potential employer won't

give it up, I'd think long and hard about an underlying philosophy of

health care that is antithetical to overall well being.

Gordon

[Guest guest]

Straz,

My personal opinion is that if they don’t

market their new practice in the confines of the old one, then it should be ok.

If they were happy, they would not move. If their patients were happy, they

would not pay the fee and go elsewhere. Restrictive covenants simply force

people into unhappy work conditions because they may not be able to move due to

life situations. They serve as the cattle prod to allow poorly managed offices

to continue to push until either you break or you leave the area. Not cool.

My understanding in speaking with a few

lawyers is that it is illegal in Virginia to keep someone from making a reasonable living through a restrictive

covenant. I’ll try and find a citation.

Restrictive covenants

Someone just posted that they're finally at the end of

a seven year,

20 mile restrictive covenant and can do what they've been wanting to

do for a long time.

I don't agree with the philosophy behind restrictive covenants in the

first place, but this one really takes my breath away. Restrictive

covenants remind me of those nasty movies of the psychotic

husband/boyfriend: " I'd rather kill you than let you go. "

In an era of primary care physician shortage, why would a practice

feel compelled to invoke such a clause? I suspect it is a sign of a

deeply disturbed practice, a practice on such shaky ground that they

feel obliged to kill even the remote chance of " competition. "

There

is more than enough work for us all. Let my people go.

While not every state will honor these covenants, I would urge those

who feel compelled to enter into employment situations to remember

that there is a shortage of primary care docs, the potential employee

is in the driver's seat here, and I would strongly urge you to

eliminate ANY elements of covenant. If a potential employer won't

give it up, I'd think long and hard about an underlying philosophy of

health care that is antithetical to overall well being.

Gordon

[Guest guest]

I found some information from "AMA Annotated Model Physician Employment Agreement" pages 110-116 (attached pdf document here, if anyone interested I can share the full 119 pages document) about Restrictive Covenant for all the states related with State & labor law. F Strazzullo wrote:

, I’ve received a different legal opinion on restrictive covenants here in VA. It was that as long as the covenants are reasonable in time and duration, they are enforceable. Twenty miles seems to stretch the boundary of reasonable and 7 years is certainly beyond reasonable. Can you give me the state code or judicial precedent that said they are illegal? I agree that anyone signing a contract should think it through before signing a restrictive covenant; but there may be times when it’s okay – planning to move in a couple of years for instance. There was an excellent article in FPM around the time of Gordon’s original article that was written by lawyers and discussed the equity of several standard contract clauses such as pay, benefits, malpractice tail, etc. in a nonadversarial manner. I can

see practices developing more enforceable restrictive covenants with the rise of concierge medicine as established partners begin pulling 300-500 (out of their 3000 primary care patients) of the best paying and usually healthiest patients from their former practice into their new practice. This really leaves the remaining partners in a bind as they are now down a doc with near the same patient load while their former “partner” runs off to an easier, usually better paid job. This is exactly what restrictive covenants are designed to prevent. Straz Charlottesville, VA Restrictive covenants Someone just posted that they're finally at the end of a seven year, 20 mile restrictive covenant and can do what they've been wanting to do for a long time. I don't agree with the philosophy behind restrictive covenants in the first place, but this one really takes my breath away. Restrictive covenants remind me of those nasty movies of the psychotic husband/boyfriend: "I'd rather kill

you than let you go." In an era of primary care physician shortage, why would a practice feel compelled to invoke such a clause? I suspect it is a sign of a deeply disturbed practice, a practice on such shaky ground that they feel obliged to kill even the remote chance of "competition." There is more than enough work for us all. Let my people go. While not every state will honor these covenants, I would urge those who feel compelled to enter into employment situations to remember that there is a shortage of primary care docs, the potential employee is in the driver's seat here, and I would strongly urge you to eliminate ANY elements of covenant. If a potential employer won't give it up, I'd think long and hard about an underlying philosophy of health care that is antithetical to overall well being. Gordon

Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.

[Guest guest]

Straz,

Here is what my local legal connection

came up with. It appears that they are legal, but have to be very narrow and

very specific to be enforced. My guess is very few of these will actually be

able to be upheld in court.

“A covenant not to compete between an

employer and an employee will be enforced if the covenant is narrowly written

to protect the employer's legitimate business interest, is not unduly

burdensome on the employee's ability to earn a living, and does not violate

public policy. Omniplex World Services Corp. v. US Invest. Services, Inc., 270 Va. 246, 249, 618 S.E.2d

340, 342 (2005); Modern Environments, Inc.

v. Stinnett, 263 Va. 491, 493, 561 S.E.2d

694, 695 (2002); v. ,

261 Va. 561, 580-81, 544

S.E.2d 666, 678 (2001). Restrictive covenants are disfavored restraints on

trade and, therefore, the employer bears the burden of proof and any

ambiguities in the contract will be construed in favor of the employee. , 261 Va. at 581, 544 S.E.2d at

678. We have

recently stated that “[e]ach non-competition agreement must be evaluated

on its own merits, balancing the provisions of the contract with the

circumstances of the businesses and employees involved.” Omniplex World Services, 270 Va. at 249, 618 S.E.2d at

342.”Parikh v. Family Care

Center, Inc., 273 Va. 284, 288-289, 641

S.E.2d 98, ___ (2007)

Restrictive covenants

Someone just posted that they're finally at the end of

a seven year,

20 mile restrictive covenant and can do what they've been wanting to

do for a long time.

I don't agree with the philosophy behind restrictive covenants in the

first place, but this one really takes my breath away. Restrictive

covenants remind me of those nasty movies of the psychotic

husband/boyfriend: " I'd rather kill you than let you go. "

In an era of primary care physician shortage, why would a practice

feel compelled to invoke such a clause? I suspect it is a sign of a

deeply disturbed practice, a practice on such shaky ground that they

feel obliged to kill even the remote chance of " competition. "

There

is more than enough work for us all. Let my people go.

While not every state will honor these covenants, I would urge those

who feel compelled to enter into employment situations to remember

that there is a shortage of primary care docs, the potential employee

is in the driver's seat here, and I would strongly urge you to

eliminate ANY elements of covenant. If a potential employer won't

give it up, I'd think long and hard about an underlying philosophy of

health care that is antithetical to overall well being.

Gordon

[Guest guest]

Gordon and other folks,

That was my posting, and I'm sorry that you misunderstood,and that I

haven't been on-line sooner to clarify. My restrictive covenant

wasn't designated to last 7 years after I left the group, just 2

years, which I believe is fairly common. That was just how long I was

working with the group and with the knowledge that I wasn't free to

leave, unless I went 20 miles away. The 20 miles would definitely be

ridiculous in some places, such as a large city, but this is a fairly

rural area, so people are used to driving longer distances to go where

they really want to get. In fact, less than an hour from here (in

PA), there's a large-but-rural group that has a 65-mile RC! Now THAT

seems ridiculous to me, but I heard they fought a physician who tried

to move to a small city about 30 miles away (unless it's all an urban

physicians' legend...) It certainly seems that someone should be able

to fight that and win, but what primary care doc can afford to try?

>

> Someone just posted that they're finally at the end of a seven year,

> 20 mile restrictive covenant and can do what they've been wanting to

> do for a long time.

>

> I don't agree with the philosophy behind restrictive covenants in the

> first place, but this one really takes my breath away. Restrictive

> covenants remind me of those nasty movies of the psychotic

> husband/boyfriend: " I'd rather kill you than let you go. "

>

> In an era of primary care physician shortage, why would a practice

> feel compelled to invoke such a clause? I suspect it is a sign of a

> deeply disturbed practice, a practice on such shaky ground that they

> feel obliged to kill even the remote chance of " competition. " There

> is more than enough work for us all. Let my people go.

>

> While not every state will honor these covenants, I would urge those

> who feel compelled to enter into employment situations to remember

> that there is a shortage of primary care docs, the potential employee

> is in the driver's seat here, and I would strongly urge you to

> eliminate ANY elements of covenant. If a potential employer won't

> give it up, I'd think long and hard about an underlying philosophy of

> health care that is antithetical to overall well being.

>

> Gordon

>

[Guest guest]

Western PA was told for primary care 2 year, 10 miles has been enforced.

M in Western Pa

Re: Restrictive covenants

Gordon and other folks,That was my posting, and I'm sorry that you misunderstood,and that Ihaven't been on-line sooner to clarify. My restrictive covenantwasn't designated to last 7 years after I left the group, just 2years, which I believe is fairly common. That was just how long I wasworking with the group and with the knowledge that I wasn't free toleave, unless I went 20 miles away. The 20 miles would definitely beridiculous in some places, such as a large city, but this is a fairlyrural area, so people are used to driving longer distances to go wherethey really want to get. In fact, less than an hour from here (inPA), there's a large-but-rural group that has a 65-mile RC! Now THATseems ridiculous to me, but I heard they fought a physician who triedto move to a small city about 30 miles away (unless it's all an urbanphysicians' legend...) It certainly seems that someone should be ableto fight that and win, but what primary care doc can afford to try?>> Someone just posted that they're finally at the end of a seven year, > 20 mile restrictive covenant and can do what they've been wanting to > do for a long time.> > I don't agree with the philosophy behind restrictive covenants in the > first place, but this one really takes my breath away. Restrictive > covenants remind me of those nasty movies of the psychotic > husband/boyfriend: "I'd rather kill you than let you go."> > In an era of primary care physician shortage, why would a practice > feel compelled to invoke such a clause? I suspect it is a sign of a > deeply disturbed practice, a practice on such shaky ground that they > feel obliged to kill even the remote chance of "competition." There > is more than enough work for us all. Let my people go.> > While not every state will honor these covenants, I would urge those > who feel compelled to enter into employment situations to remember > that there is a shortage of primary care docs, the potential employee > is in the driver's seat here, and I would strongly urge you to > eliminate ANY elements of covenant. If a potential employer won't > give it up, I'd think long and hard about an underlying philosophy of > health care that is antithetical to overall well being.> > Gordon>

[Guest guest]

           

,

Who wants to go to court?  Virginia is a right to work state, but paradoxically, it usually benefits

employers

I agree with you 100% about an physician employee. No RC.  As the

employee builds his practice the employer can either make a partnership offer

or let the doc enter the medical free market. 

A partner is a different, I think.  They share business risk and

benefit, most of their patients will probably follow them if convenient,

sometimes there are buyout clauses that could cost the remaining docs, it puts

a lot of stress on the partners who remain to cover the patients and overhead

with one fewer doc billing.

 

Restrictive covenants

Someone just posted that they're finally at the end of

a seven year,

20 mile restrictive covenant and can do what they've been wanting to

do for a long time.

I don't agree with the philosophy behind restrictive covenants in the

first place, but this one really takes my breath away. Restrictive

covenants remind me of those nasty movies of the psychotic

husband/boyfriend: " I'd rather kill you than let you go. "

In an era of primary care physician shortage, why would a practice

feel compelled to invoke such a clause? I suspect it is a sign of a

deeply disturbed practice, a practice on such shaky ground that they

feel obliged to kill even the remote chance of " competition. "

There

is more than enough work for us all. Let my people go.

While not every state will honor these covenants, I would urge those

who feel compelled to enter into employment situations to remember

that there is a shortage of primary care docs, the potential employee

is in the driver's seat here, and I would strongly urge you to

eliminate ANY elements of covenant. If a potential employer won't

give it up, I'd think long and hard about an underlying philosophy of

health care that is antithetical to overall well being.

Gordon

[Guest guest]

Thanks.

I found the FPM article.

http://www.aafp.org/fpm/20021100/73apri.html

I remember it as longer

though.

Restrictive covenants

Someone just posted that they're finally at the end of

a seven year,

20 mile restrictive covenant and can do what they've been wanting to

do for a long time.

I don't agree with the philosophy behind restrictive covenants in the

first place, but this one really takes my breath away. Restrictive

covenants remind me of those nasty movies of the psychotic

husband/boyfriend: " I'd rather kill you than let you go. "

In an era of primary care physician shortage, why would a practice

feel compelled to invoke such a clause? I suspect it is a sign of a

deeply disturbed practice, a practice on such shaky ground that they

feel obliged to kill even the remote chance of " competition. "

There

is more than enough work for us all. Let my people go.

While not every state will honor these covenants, I would urge those

who feel compelled to enter into employment situations to remember

that there is a shortage of primary care docs, the potential employee

is in the driver's seat here, and I would strongly urge you to

eliminate ANY elements of covenant. If a potential employer won't

give it up, I'd think long and hard about an underlying philosophy of

health care that is antithetical to overall well being.

Gordon

Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo!

your homepage.