Search form

New Connecticut Statute Restricts Physician Non-Compete Agreements

By Clifford R. Atlas and Erik J. Winton
  • May 6, 2016

The Connecticut General Assembly has passed a bill that establishes significant new restrictions on physician non-compete agreements in the state. The governor is expected to sign the bill (Senate Bill 351, as amended) soon.

Under SB 351, a physician covenant not to compete is valid and enforceable only if it is:

  1. necessary to protect a legitimate business interest;
  2. reasonably limited in time, geographic scope, and practice restrictions as needed to  protect that interest; and
  3. otherwise consistent with the law and public policy.

The statute also specifies that the party seeking to enforce a physician covenant not to compete bears the burden of proof at any proceeding. These factors and burden of proof are consistent with current Connecticut common law as to non-compete agreements in general. The remainder of the new statute is not.

For covenants not to compete that are entered into, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, the statute prohibits restricting a physician’s competitive activities (i) for longer than one year and (ii) beyond 15 miles from the primary site where the physician practices (i.e., the office, facility, or location from which a majority of the revenue from the physician’s services is generated).

Additionally, a covenant not to compete entered into, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, is not enforceable against a physician if (i) the employment agreement at issue was not made in anticipation of, or as part of, a partnership or ownership agreement and the agreement expires and is not renewed, unless, prior to the expiration, the employer makes a bona fide offer to renew the contract on the same or similar terms and conditions, or (ii) the employer terminates the employment or contractual relationship without cause.

The statute sets an additional restriction for covenants not to compete that are entered into, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, between physicians and (1) hospitals, health systems, or medical schools, or (2) medical foundations formed by any of these entities. It allows these covenants to restrict a physician’s right to practice only with another such entity or medical foundation.

Finally, SB 351 provides that if a covenant is rendered void and unenforceable under the statute, the remaining provisions of the contract remain in full force and effect, including provisions requiring the payment of damages for injuries suffered because of the contract’s termination.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding SB 351 and assist healthcare employers to address specific non-compete scenarios.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 2, 2019

New Jersey Court Brings ‘Clarity and Uniformity’ to Analysis of Restrictive Covenants

August 2, 2019

The New Jersey Appellate Division has clarified the analysis required to determine the effect of restrictive covenant agreements (RCAs) and offered guidance to practitioners drafting RCAs under New Jersey law in a decision on six consolidated actions. ADP, LLC v. Kusins, No. A-4664-16T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 26, 2019).... Read More

August 1, 2019

Healthcare Organizations, Is Your Patient Portal Secure?

August 1, 2019

Healthcare organizations’ traditional cybersecurity measures are insufficient against today’s cyberattacks, according to a report from LexisNexis® Risk Solutions and the Information Security Media Group released in July 2019. Even as healthcare organizations embrace new technologies (such as patient portals), the report shows that... Read More

July 16, 2019

New York Expands Telemedicine Regulations

July 16, 2019

The authorized use of telehealth to deliver mental health services to New Yorkers has been expanded by amendments to the state Office of Mental Health’s (OMH) Telemental Health Services regulations increasing the types of professionals who may provide care and the places where care recipients can be treated. The New York OMH’s... Read More