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 with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

January 7, 2019

2019: The Year Ahead for Employers

January 7, 2019

Over the past year, state and local governments responded in a variety of ways to national policy, and the midterm elections painted a picture of what’s in store for employers in 2019 and beyond. Jackson Lewis’ annual report outlines upcoming issues, trends, legislation and regulations employers need to be aware of in the coming year... Read More

August 27, 2018

Non-Compete Covenants Must be Reasonable for Preliminary Injunction, Nevada Supreme Court Affirms

August 27, 2018

A non-compete agreement in Nevada “must be limited to the geographical areas in which an employer has particular business interests,” the Nevada Supreme Court has affirmed. Shores v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Aug. 2, 2018). The Court also concluded that when an employer seeks to enforce a non-compete... Read More

August 6, 2018

Labor Department Independent Contractors Guidance Targets Home Care, Nursing, Caregiver Registries

August 6, 2018

In its first substantive guidance on independent contractors, the Trump Administration has targeted misclassification in the healthcare industry. The Department of Labor (DOL) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2018-4 (“Determining Whether Nurse or Caregiver Registries Are Employers of the Caregiver”) on July 13, 2018, to provide... Read More