July 19, 2022

Is There a Doctor in the House? Helping Physician Non-Competes Survive Challenges

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content.
Register Now

Many non-compete agreements face challenges in both execution and enforcement. Each state has its own standards for what is permissible regarding duration and scope. And many states layer on additional restrictions and requirements when imposing a non-compete on a healthcare practitioner.

Here are five questions you should consider before entering into a non-compete with a physician.




Acceptable terms within an employment agreement non-compete vary widely from state to state:

  • Some states, including Hawaii, New Jersey and New York, follow the same general "reasonableness" tests that they do for other non-healthcare employees.
  • Others have codified specific terms that must be drafted into physician non-competes (such as Texas's requirement to include a buy-out clause), or specific exceptions where they cannot be imposed (such as Florida's ban on physician non-competes where "one entity employs or contracts with, either directly or through related or affiliated entities, all physicians who practice such specialty.")
  • In some states, such as Delaware, physician non-competes cannot be specifically enforced. Liquidated damages are the only remedy for a breach.
  • And in other states, including California and Massachusetts, non-competes are simply prohibited in the physician employment context.

Therefore, the state law that governs the physician's employment agreement is incredibly important to the analysis of what restrictions are permissible.


Non-competes are not one-size-fits-all, even within one state. The context is important.

Consider the nature of the relationship and transaction when drafting non-competes for physicians. As a general rule, non-competes are more broadly enforceable in the sale-of-business context than they are in the context of an employment contract, and can be broader in duration and scope for a sale of business. Even in the state of California (notorious for being anti-restrictive-covenant), Business and Professions Code section 16601 permits the seller of a business to enter into a reasonable non-compete to protect for the buyer the value of the goodwill of the business being sold. Make sure your non-competes are properly tailored for each context.


Some states differ even in how they apply non-compete restrictions for "physicians." For example, in Nevada, a specialist may be restricted from practicing general medicine for a certain amount of time, but must be permitted to continue to practice her specialty without restrictions (see Ellis v. McDaniel). Meanwhile, in New Jersey, a restrictive covenant against a specialist may be upheld for a reasonable amount of time and geographic range (see Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More).

Keep in mind that many states have not only taken a special interest in monitoring non-competes for physicians generally, but also apply additional carve-outs for specialists.


Even where physician non-competes are drafted in a way that the parties deem reasonable, courts may still find that the terms are too broad. Some states allow courts to "blue pencil" unenforceable terms, which typically means that a court may strike out offensive terms but will not rewrite the provision. Other states permit courts to reasonably reform a non-compete if, for example, the duration or geographic scope is unenforceable.

Before entering into a non-compete with a physician, consult with legal counsel on whether the jurisdiction allows for blue penciling or reformation, and whether it is discretionary or mandatory for a court to do so. In a state that will blue pencil, depending on your strategy and goal for that restriction, you may consider building in step-downs to permit the court to more easily revise the provision.


The best defense is a good offense. The best way to ensure that your noncompete with a physician is enforced is to take a critical look at the reasonable needs of your business. While every state has its standard of "reasonable," it helps to know in advance where exactly your patients and clients live, how far-reaching your practice or hospital is, and for how long your business will reasonably need to restrict a physician from competing or interfering with your business. All of those facts are pertinent to eventual enforcement of a non-compete, which means you will need them in the first instance when drafting the agreement. Corporate and employment counsel can assist you with understanding what is "market" (typical and reasonable) in the current transactional landscape and industry. But no one knows your business better than you, and because of this, your input is necessary to effectively tailor the non-compete to meet your business's needs.


For any business transaction or issue involving non-competes with physician sellers, employers or owners, please feel free to contact our M&A healthcare and employment teams, who can help you draft an appropriately tailored noncompete to meet your needs.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From McDermott Will & Emery

On the Road Again: Alternative Designs May Impact Trade Dress Functionality Analysis

By Kavya Rallabhandi McDermott Will & Emery May 25 , 2023

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded a summary judgment ruling, finding that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s alleged trade dress was functional and therefore excluded from trade dress protection.

Elevate the $: Geographic Isolation Helps Defeat Trademark Infringement Claim

By Kat Lynch McDermott Will & Emery May 25 , 2023

In a case between similarly named banks, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed expert disclosure requirements, conducted a de novo likelihood of confusion analysis and ultimately upheld a finding of no trademark infringement.

First Circuit: Claim Preclusion Shouldn't Apply to Bar Claims Under VARA

By Hannah Cohen McDermott Will & Emery May 25 , 2023

Addressing for the first time whether federal res judicata law recognizes the alternative determinations doctrine, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that a plaintiff’s claims under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) were not precluded by a previous action in which she brought a federal copyright claim against the defendant.

More From Health Care Law

Congress Adds AKS and Stark Law Exceptions for Certain Wellness Programs

By Denise Burke McDermott Will & Emery May 25 , 2023

As a part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (CAA), Congress passed new exceptions to the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark Law) and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) allowing certain healthcare entities to provide mental health or behavioral health improvement and/or maintenance programs to physicians and other clinicians.

Texas Approves SB 14 Prohibiting Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

By Amanda K. Jester McDermott Will & Emery May 25 , 2023

On May 17, 2023, the Texas Senate approved Senate Bill No. 14 (SB 14), prohibiting physicians from providing gender-affirming medical care to minors experiencing gender dysphoria (distress that results from having one’s gender identity not match one’s sex assigned at birth).

GT's The Performance Review Episode 20: All Secrets Revealed: Employee Investigations

By Philip I. Person Greenberg Traurig May 24 , 2023

In this episode, Sue Ann Van Dermyden, co-founder and senior partner at one of the nation’s top investigations firms, joins Philip Person and Ryan Bykerk to discuss the ins and outs of employee investigations.

Featured Stories