Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lawdawg_1

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

437 profile views
  1. The “no treat” provision is not a covenant not to compete. There is a covenant not to compete provision and that provision is enforceable in these circumstances.
  2. The question is whether the covenant not to compete is enforceable?
  3. Are you viewing the "no treat" provision as a covenant not to compete? There is a separate non-compete provision in the physician's contract and I'm aware of Sec 15.50. I have concluded that the non-compete complies with Sec 15.50. The non-compete has a 10 mile radius and she will setup her practice 11 miles away. So the question becomes can she see and "advise, counsel and treat" those patients who see her at her new practice location?
  4. Hi, all. A physician entered into an employment agreement with a small solo practice in Texas. She's going to exercise her right to terminate her contract without "cause". However, she will be subject to certain restrictive covenants such as a non-compete. Interestingly, there is a non-solicit prohibition but only with respect to employees. There is NOT a customary non-solicit provision with respect to the practice's patients. In Texas, non-compete's and non-solicits are generally enforceable. She plans to open her practice outside the non-compete territory and solicit her former patients. What is interesting in this contract is that it states that she may not "advise, counsel or treat" any patient of Employer treated by Employee" other than those patients who are in the course of an acute illness. In essence, this is stating that although she's not prohibited from soliciting her former patients, she can't treat a former patient who comes to see her as a result of her solicitation. She has evidently contractually agreed to this prohibition. Is this enforceable? I have searched case law and the Texas Medical Board rules and can't find anything on point. The GC office at the TMB told me there is no ethical violation here. It seems to me that a patient should be able to see the physician of their choice. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
  5. Yes, I appreciate the responses to the post and was hoping that an employment attorney or two would chime in, if he or she hasn't done so already.
  6. Because the employer could always terminate without cause if a physician employees provides notice of his or her intention to "retire" which then calls into question the usefulness of such ability by the employee. The without cause termination renders the retirement termination moot. Why have it in the contract if you can't use it? It seems grossly unfair, especially with the dollar amounts at stake here.
  7. A physician is subject to an employment agreement. The agreement allows the physician to terminate the agreement if he decides to "retire" but he must give the employer 12 months prior written notice before his retirement is effective. The benefit to the physician of terminating the agreement for "retirement" is that his compensation is much richer than if he terminated his own employment without cause (note that a physician employee does not necessarily need to be of retirement age in order to terminate for "retirement"). The employer has a right to terminate the agreement without cause by providing 30 days prior written notice to physician. The physician believes that after he provides his notice of his intent to retire, that the employer may then give notice to him of their right to terminate him without cause. The physician believes that a lot of compensation could be saved by the employer by doing so, and relations between the physician and employer are deteriorating. The question is whether the physician has any recourse should he be terminated without cause (and after he provides his notice of intent to retire)? From a purely contractual standpoint, it seems that the employer has every right to pursue this course of action. Just not sure if there are any employment considerations here or fairness arguments that the physician can successfully argue? Would appreciate any thoughts on the matter.
  8. Sometimes you just need to hear it from someone else. Have you ever spoken to another lawyer about his or her thoughts just to get their viewpoint? Just to get a gut check? Your response was venomously sarcastic and unwarranted. I have seen a few of your other posts and they contain the same amount of acrimony. I'm a new member to this site and am hoping that the other posters are a little more pleasant. Thanks for your time.
  9. I have recently been retained to review a services agreement, stockholder repurchase agreement, and a few other ancillary contracts. My client is a physician and her professional association (PA). My client, both individually, and her PA, are subject to a services agreement whereby my client provides medical services in the capacity of a surgeon to the employer in return for compensation. The employer is a medical surgical group, also a PA. My client also a shareholder/owner of the medical surgical group. My client believes that her relationship with the other surgeons/shareholders of the surgical group is deteriorating so she asked me to review how to terminate the services agreement. She also asked me how the medical surgical group could terminate the services agreement. She believes that litigation could arise. My main point of contact has been her long-term boyfriend who is not my client. The boyfriend seems to be her business counselor (he has his own medical consulting company), and he communicates with her frequently. In anticipation of litigation, should I start directing all my email communications directly to my client and not the boyfriend? If the boyfriend is cc’d on the emails, would this waive the attorney-client privilege? Likewise on phone calls, can he participate or would we lose privilege? If we do waive privilege, would a potential “fix” be for the boyfriend to be “hired” as an employee of the physician’s PA such that he would then be an employee of my client? I can even make him an officer of the PA if that helps. To be honest, the boyfriend is the sophisticated one and the physician not so much. If I’m unable to speak with him then my value as legal counsel is diminished. Our jurisdiction is Texas. I’m a transactional lawyer and couldn’t litigate my way out of a traffic ticket. Any trial attorneys out there?
  • Create New...