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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT