ILNews

Court split on non-compete geography

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Geography is the main sticking point that has split the Indiana Supreme Court on determining reasonableness of non-compete covenants as they relate to physicians and medical practices.

With its 3-2 ruling March 11 in Central Indiana Podiatry v. Kenneth Krueger, Meridian Health Group PC, No. 29S05-0706-CV-256, the court held that employment contracts between doctors and medical practice groups don't absolutely go against public policy and are enforceable if written reasonably.

But views on what's "geographically reasonable" in the latter part of the holding is what drew disagreement from the court, with covenants only being able to restrict an area where a physician has developed patient relationships using the practice group's resources. That didn't happen in this case, the majority determined.

The case involved a claim that the Carmel practitioner violated his non-compete contract with his former employer, Indiana's largest podiatry group, when he began working for a nearby competitor within two years. Krueger had been fired in 2005 from Central Indiana Podiatry on the north side of Indianapolis in Marion County, and set up shop about 10 minutes north in Hamilton County at Meridian Health Group.

An agreement he'd signed before leaving Central Indiana Podiatry prevented him from working within 14 counties during those two years. He ended up in court and Hamilton Superior Judge Daniel Pfleging ruled in January 2006 that the geographic restrictions of the contract were unreasonable and couldn't be enforced.

Last summer, the Indiana Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court decision on grounds that the non-compete was geographically reasonable, since Central Indiana Podiatry had several locations and drew patients from surrounding counties.

But a majority of justices determined the podiatry group's restrictions were too strict and the business shouldn't be able to stop Krueger from practicing in the Hamilton County area, since the record didn't reflect a large number of patients traveling from other areas to that new office location. The court did leave in place some of the off-limit locales of Marion, Howard, and Tippecanoe counties.

In doing so, justices applied what is known as the blue pencil doctrine, which is typical in non-competes with a territorial issue, and allows courts to reform or rewrite portions of agreements determined to be too broad.

Justices Ted Boehm, Frank Sullivan, and Robert Rucker held the majority; Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote a dissent, and Justice Brent Dickson joined him.

"The competitive reality is that these two areas function as one for commercial purposes," the chief justice wrote. "That a county line divides these two locations means very little to most customers or purveyors of service, and I wouldn't regard it as grounds for a court voiding a contract by which two relatively sophisticated parties ordered their commercial relationship."

While the court determined the issue of injunctive relief is moot in this case - as the two-year term expired in July 2007 - justices decided that injunctive relief is permissible in physician non-compete agreements because they raise significant policy concerns and recur frequently.

Overall, the court declined to ban non-competes all together as three other states do and Krueger urged the court to consider. Justices relied on a quarter-century old case of Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Association, 449 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. 1983) that established a reasonableness test for the contracts, pointing out that banning the covenants is a public policy decision for legislators and no change has come since then.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT