 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Community Hospital Group4/5/2005
cessive. Therefore, even if enforced, MSNJ urges that the covenant must be "blue penciled" in order for it to be found reasonable.
2. New Jersey Hospital Association
The New Jersey Hospital Association (NJHA) serves the professional, public policy, educational and legal interests of its hospital and health system members. NJHA's members account for over ninety percent of the hospitals located in the State. NJHA argues that Karlin should be preserved because it incorporates the best interests of the medical profession, the public, and quality health care, and because the test is flexible enough to weigh public policy factors differently than in an ordinary commercial case.
NJHA asserts that restrictive covenants for physicians are distinguishable from attorneys' covenants in two significant ways. First, a restrictive covenant prohibits an attorney from having any relationship with a client whereas one involving a physician only restricts the location where the physician can have a relationship with the patient. Second, the Supreme Court has the responsibility for monitoring attorneys, whereas other institutions such as the AMA and the State Board of Medical Examiners regulate physician conduct.
NJHA adds that there is no legal rationale for distinguishing this case, which involves an agreement between a not-for-profit hospital and a physician, from Karlin, which involved an agreement between two physicians.
III.
A.
We turn first to the issue whether we should overrule Karlin and declare a per se rule voiding all restrictive covenants contained in the employment contracts of physicians. We begin with a discussion of Karlin and its underpinnings.
The plaintiff, Dr. Karlin, an established dermatologist hired the defendant, Dr. Weinberg, a new physician with no prior connections or training in New Jersey. Karlin, supra, 77 N.J. at 412. The employment contract contained a provision that upon termination defendant was not to practice within a ten-mile radius for five years. Ibid. The defendant left and opened a practice on the same street. Id. at 413. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant in the agreement. Ibid.
In evaluating the covenant, Justice Clifford, writing for the majority, traced the prior restrictive covenant cases involving physicians, commercial business dealings, and attorneys. Id. at 415-420. Citing Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 55 N.J. 571, 576 (1970), and Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle, 58 N.J. 25, 32-3 (1971), the Court declared that " post-employment restrictive covenant will be found to be reasonable when it protects the 'legitimate' interests of the employer, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public[.]" Id. at 417. Although acknowledging that a physician, like any other employer, has no legitimate interest in preventing competition, the Court found that the physician-employer has a legitimate interest in protecting ongoing relationships with patients. Ibid.
Next, the Court rejected the defendant's argument to extend to physicians the holding in Dwyer v. Jung, 133 N.J. Super. 343 (Ch. Div. 1975), aff'd, o.b. 137 N.J. Super. 135 (App. Div. 1975), that restrictive covenants among attorneys are unreasonable per se because they are injurious to the public as a matter of law. Id. at 418-19. While endorsing the holding in Dwyer, the Court distinguished restrictive covenants among attorneys from those among physicians. Id. at 419. First, the Court noted that in contrast to the restrictive covenant in Dwyer, which prohibited the attorney from "doing business" with any particular person
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 New Jersey Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|