insuranceneeds.in

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Thursday, 30 July 2009

Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C. 866 N.E.2d 85 (Ill. 2006) - Doctors Face Steep Uphill Battle In Attempting to Void Noncompetition Agreements

Posted on 12:07 by Unknown
The validity of doctor noncompetition agreements frequently arises under Illinois law. In 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court decided the Mohanty case which has made it extremely difficult for doctors to successfully challenge noncompetition clauses in their employment contracts.

The Mohanty case is significant because it upheld two doctor-clinic noncompetition agreements; both with substantial restrictions on the doctor.

The Defendant in the case was a heart clinic owned and operated by Dr. Monteverde, board certified in both cardiology and internal medicine.

The first noncompetition agreement was entered into by the Defendant clinic and Dr. Ramadurai. Dr. Ramadurai's contract called for minimum compensation of $160,000 per year, but provided that upon termination, "Dr. Ramadurai 'shall not' practice medicine within a two-mile radius of any Clinic office or at any of the four hospitals where the Clinic operated for a period of three years.

The second noncompetition agreement was entered into by the Defendant and Dr. Mohanty. This contract also guaranteed Dr. Mohanty minimum compensation of $160,00, but provided that upon termination "Dr. Mohanty 'shall not' practice medicine within a five-mile radius of any Clinic office or at any of the four restricted hospitals for a period of five years." Id. at 90.

The Illinois Supreme Court held that (a) the Doctors had not shown any breach of the employment contracts which would render the noncompetition clauses unenforceable; and (b) that neither restrictive covenant was "unreasonably overbroad in [its] temporal or activity restrictions."

The Court first rejected the doctors' contention that noncompetition agreements in physician employment contracts were void as against public policy.

Next, the Court held that "under general contract principles, a material breach of a contract by one party may be grounds for releasing the other party from his contractual obligations." The Doctors contended that the clinic breached the employment contracts by billing Medicare for tests that they conducted. Thus, alleged the doctors, the clinic wrongfully profited from their work. Furthermore, they alleged that the billing practice of the clinic was improper. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff doctors had not proved a breach of contract.

Therefore, the employment contracts, and the non-competition clauses contained in those agreements were valid and enforceable.

The obvious result of this case is that a doctor will have an exceedingly difficult time in challenging a noncompetition clause in an employment contract, provided that the clause closely resembles the clauses upheld in the Mohanty case.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
Copyright 2009
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in Contract Law, Corporate Law, Creditor Rights, Litigation Issues, Securities Law | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • The Private Right of Action Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)5
    Sometimes it is worth reviewing the basics. How is it that an investor can bring a Section 10b-5 claim against a company and/or its officer...
  • Securities Law - The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) is a massive revision of the way in which financial services are f...
  • The Dodd-Frank Act Has Expanded SEC Enforcement Powers
    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has significantly expanded SEC enforcement powers. All of the expanded powers...
  • Illinois Court Rejects Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurance Broker
    Insurance brokers have a fiduciary duty to their clients. However, according to the Illinois Appellate Court, that fiduciary duty only appli...
  • Securities Law - SEC Appeals Adverse Mark Cuban Ruling
    Earlier this year, see below entry of September 18, 2009, the Northern District of Texas dismissed the SEC’s complaint, alleging insider tra...
  • LLC Operating Agreement Defeats Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
    WOSS, LLC v. 218 ECKFORD, LLC, 102 AD 3d 860 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2013 - Google Scholar : The plaintiff LLC was a member of the d...
  • The Sad Tale of Norvergence Illustrates the Unique Law Applicable to Finance Companies
    Most people think that if a product does not work, you should not have to pay for it. This is usually true. It is not true when a finance ...
  • LLC Question - Does The LLC Have To Buy The Interest Of A Departing member?
    CONCORDIA PARTNERS, LLC v. Ward, Dist. Court, D. Maine 2013 - Google Scholar : The typical LLC operating agreement contains a provision gove...
  • Business Debts - The Bankruptcy Court Will Not Discharge A Debt Where The Underlying Loan Was Procured Through Fraud
    In Ojeda v. Goldberg , No. 09-2008, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a determination of the District Court (Judge Gottschall) that a debt was no...
  • Urologists take investment battle to court - Health Care News - Crain's Chicago Business
    Urologists take investment battle to court - Health Care News - Crain's Chicago Business : 'via Blog this'

Categories

  • Business Advice
  • Collection Law
  • Consumer Rights
  • Contract Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Creditor Rights
  • Federal Arbitration Act
  • Federal Rules of Evidence
  • Fraud Claims
  • Fraudulent Transfer
  • Insurance Coverage Disputes
  • Internet Collection Scam
  • Limited Liability Company Issues
  • Litigation Issues
  • Moorman Doctrine
  • Mortgage Foreclosure
  • Noncompetition Agreements
  • Personal Jurisdiction
  • Securities Law
  • Shareholder Derivative Actions
  • Too Many Lawyers and Too Many Law Students
  • Uniform Commercial Code

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (27)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (5)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2012 (34)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2011 (40)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2010 (36)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ▼  2009 (18)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ▼  July (2)
      • Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C. 866 N.E.2d ...
      • Seventh Circuit Rejects Lost Profits Claim Because...
    • ►  June (4)
  • ►  2008 (1)
    • ►  September (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile