ILNews

Court mulls non-competes, parental rights

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Two sets of arguments before the Indiana Supreme Court this morning gave justices a look at the scope of non-compete agreements, and how much parental privilege exists when it comes to discipline and corporal punishment.

First, the jurists posed questions in Central Indiana Podiatry P.C. v. Kenneth J. Krueger, Meridian Health Group P.C., 29S05-0706-CV-256, which the Court of Appeals ruled on in January. The appellate court overturned a lower court decision and held the podiatrist, Krueger, should have stopped working pending trial after his former company sued him in 2005 for violating a contract's restrictive covenants about working in about a dozen surrounding counties for two years after leaving his former practice.

Attorneys offered suggestions to the court that ranged from eliminating non-compete agreements entirely, using the territorial-focused blue pencil doctrine to narrow agreements, or to leave the system unchanged.

Justice Frank Sullivan asked the most questions of both sides, at one point describing this area of law "fascinating." He cited two recent cases from Supreme Courts in Illinois and Tennessee, which held respectively this year that clinics can enforce non-competes even if they interfere with patients' rights to choose medical providers, and that prohibited enforcement of non-competes.

Justice Sullivan seemed to lean more to deferring to the medical community on the issue, rather than paving new ground.

"Doctors know more than lawyers on this, maybe we should defer to the medical profession and [American Medical Association] rather than prescribe for them what their ethics should be," he said. "Just like we wouldn't like it if physicians told us lawyers what our ethics should be."

His reference to the AMA guidelines came from Krueger's attorney, Joseph Reiswerg, who mentioned that the association considers non-compete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.

Attorneys Jim Knauer and Steve Runyan argued that thousands of non-compete agreements that exist in Indiana could be affected by this ruling, while Reiswerg contended this comes down to the patient's ability to chose a doctor.

Following a short break between arguments, the half dozen people from the first arguments were joined by multiple rows of onlookers, including television news cameras, for the corporal punishment case arising from Marion County.

That case, Sophia Willis v. State of Indiana, 49S02-0707-CR-295, drew more pointed questions and philosophical discussion from justices as they considered what kind of guidance appellate courts could give to trial judges, child welfare workers, prosecutors, and parents on this issue.

The case stemmed from a single mother's use of a belt, or extension or electrical cord in spanking her 11-year-old son five to seven times. She was disciplining him for a February 2006 incident of stealing her clothes and taking them to school, which a teacher contacted her about. After sending the child away for the weekend, Willis was unable to resolve the situation and decided to use corporal punishment, attorneys said.

The boy reported the incident to school officials, who contacted child protective services. Willis was later charged with felony child battery and convicted during a bench trial by a commissioner. The conviction was reduced to a Class A misdemeanor, and Willis received a suspended sentence.

Since the case began, the deputy attorney general handling the appeal told the justices that Child in Need of Services proceedings began but were abandoned, and Willis has agreed to give up custody of her son to the boy's father.

"There are spankings, and there are spankings," Nicole Schuster told the justices. "There are facts that told the judge there was a line here. This crossed that line."

The number of whippings goes to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the mother's actions, Schuster contended.

But Indianapolis attorney Robert King Jr., representing Willis, said this was a punishment of last resort as she had previously sent her son to his room as an alternative disciplinary method - but without success. He encouraged the court to consider multiple testing prongs established in Mitchell v. State, 813 N.E.2d 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), which held that dropping a 4-year-old to the floor and kicking him was child battery. His suggestions included using age, intent, injuries sustained, prior attempts at discipline, and the punishment to crime relationship.

"This was a punishment of last resort and was enhanced just like we have in the criminal justice system," he said, referring to how courts and juries can enhance criminal sentences. "This is like pornography. We know it when we see it."

He noted the trial record reflects the sad nature of this case, as Willis told the trial court she was concerned about her son ending up in the criminal justice system because her "tool" to discipline was taken away.

"That's the battle you face as a parent these days," King said.

Justice Brent Dickson took a strong presence at arguments, interrupting Schuster within the first seconds of her statement and at several points noting the difficult issue of parental privilege in this case.

"Some of us are exploring this because of the possibility there may be an absence of guidance here in the law helping prosecutors decide which cases to pursue, and parents decide how to go about fulfilling their responsibilities to raise children to be law-abiding citizens," Justice Dickson said. "Can you help us in crafting an interpretation that could help guide the development here?"

Justice Sullivan mentioned that this was the first case he recalls in his nearly 14 years on the court where a parental-discipline case has been prosecuted. He noted that it might be better for the court to err on the side of caution, especially in light of the high volume of child abuse reports and cases in Indiana.

The arguments for both cases are available online at http://www.indianacourts.org/apps/webcasts.
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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT