Restrictive covenant

[q-school]

jpa wrote:

:good!  we need bright motivated people to stay entrepreneurial and open their own shops.

it’s a lot of work!  if you are truly opening your own shop, you will have to negotiate with insurers.  that can be especially challenging, unless you accept that in solo practice you get the scraps and everyone employed around you is being reimbursed at a better rate for the same work.  price of freedom.

Click to expand…

Most of my outpatient clinical rotations were with private practice physicians.  Every single one gave me the “business talk” on how they were successful, and reassured me that PP isn’t dead for those who want to do it.  They all loved their careers and had great work life balance with above the national mean salaries.  Hopefully the opportunities will still be there in a few years.

Click to expand...

i meant it when i said good!  need bright motivated people to stay entrepreneurial.

there is a huge difference between joining a private practice group and starting your own practice.  if they are business savvy then it is hard to believe they don't have a restrictive covenant in place to protect them.  why don't you ask them about that aspect?

i'd be curious to see how they maintained above the mean salaries.  it is certainly doable, but not for starting a solo practice for many years.  not with great work life balance.  at least not in my experience.  something has to give.  possible exception if someone very experienced is starting their own practice with a good reputation and referral base already in place.

anyhow good luck!

 

[pulmdoc]

ddscook wrote:

pulmdoc wrote:

California, North Dakota and Oklahoma are the three states that forbid non compete clauses outright. Definately worth knowing if you are in your job search.

Click to expand…

My husband just interviewed with a private practice in CA and the CEO mentioned to him that they have a 25-30mile RC from any of their practice locations.

Why do practices even place these non-competes in their contracts if they know it’s not enforceable in CA

Click to expand...

Because they know that you may not know it's non-enforceable.  Someone I know practices in a state w/o restrictive covenants, employer contract had one anyway, he left and thought RC was enforceable, commuted 90 minutes each way for 2 years as a result.  There's little downside for the employer to try and get away with whatever they can.

[q-school]

pulmdoc wrote:

ddscook wrote:

pulmdoc wrote:

California, North Dakota and Oklahoma are the three states that forbid non compete clauses outright. Definately worth knowing if you are in your job search.

Click to expand…

My husband just interviewed with a private practice in CA and the CEO mentioned to him that they have a 25-30mile RC from any of their practice locations.

Why do practices even place these non-competes in their contracts if they know it’s not enforceable in CA

Click to expand…

Because they know that you may not know it’s non-enforceable.  Someone I know practices in a state w/o restrictive covenants, employer contract had one anyway, he left and thought RC was enforceable, commuted 90 minutes each way for 2 years as a result.  There’s little downside for the employer to try and get away with whatever they can.

Click to expand...

my parents used to own a dry cleaning store.  they had a sign up not responsible for damaged clothes, stuff left in pockets etc.  legal?  who knows.  did it deter issues when you pointed at the large sign behind you?  definitely.



 

[Chickenlittle]

Practice in Virginia and paid a lot of legal fees to challenge a restrictive covenant.  I am not a lawyer and you need to seek legal advice but what I was told was that there are several ways to challenge one. If you do challenge it, it becomes a very high stakes game. Group would get injunction and stop your practice then you would challenge in court. If you win it you would be awarded damages for inability to work. There is not mechanism to find out without challenging it. Of course you could negotiate a release as group realizes what they could lose.  I was told if the restrictions were overly broad (my case county wide) then it could be struct down (court would not reduce it but strike it down). Also if you could prove your practice was essential to community it would be ruled against since community good would outweigh the contract (for instance you were only type of specialist in county with multi specialty group). In my case restrictive covenant was overly restrictive and the group had no chance of enforcing it so they negotiated and released it. Still ended up in court when new contract was violated by them (some people never learn). I was at least smart enough to insist on clause that if contract violated and litigated losing side responsible for all legal costs. Ended up with very generous payment and legal costs paid. However, I would never recommend litigation except as last recourse. Time consuming, disruptive and not worth it