Chiropractic Non Compete Agreement
Chiropractors should be aware that most states do not have such restrictive laws regarding the applicability of a chiropractic competition agreement. Instead, state law will dictate exactly what a legal competition agreement against chiropractic is or is not. Basically, EVMS has taken the first break or cleans the hand defense by inserting the language into the employment/non-competition agreement that allows them to do so. The Tribunal found that the inclusion of this “defence clause” in the contract is not unacceptable or contrary to public policy. But let me give you a little precaution before you celebrate too soon. In these countries (in the absence of laws that strongly prohibit or restrict non-competitive competition against chiropractic), chiropractors must ensure that their chiropractic non-competition agreements are properly constructed. It is not really possible to answer the question of implementation with certainty until the chiropractic competition agreement is reviewed by a court, which is clearly not a position that most chiropractors will ever want to be in. In 2015, the effects of the Bernard vs Sherman Brothers Trucking case were clearly felt in Oregon. Since August 2019, a search of the Oregon State Non-Competion Agreements website shows that the waves of this case have exceeded the limits of public health and have influenced Oregon`s non-compete laws to resemble (but not the same) California laws. In general, if you practice in an urban area, the idea of a 25-mile non-compete will seem completely ridiculous to most courts. Similarly, a 25-year non-competition (regardless of distance) would likely be quickly denied. But a reasonable distance depending on the type of place you are (here you think urban, suburban or rural) and a reasonable period of time (usually less than 5 years and usually 2 or 3) will increase the chances that your chiropractic competition agreement will be confirmed in court.
The Virginia Supreme Court accepted Dr. Garcia`s position and upheld the non-compete clause against him inapplicable. The Court applied the agreement in its entirety and applied the no-competition regime only to physicians who were “terminated” under the agreement. The Tribunal found that the contract did not pass the first three-part test establishing the validity of a non-competition clause. This first attempt requires that the agreement be no broader than is necessary to protect an employer`s legitimate business interest. The court found that the applicant`s prohibition on participating in the “practice of medicine” within the prohibited geographical area went far beyond the practice of his specialization in gastroenterology. As a result, the prohibition was too broad and unenforceable. The Tribunal also found that it would not assert the liquidable provision of the compensation agreement, since the language of non-competition is not applicable under Virginia law.