CCS is a physician office practice that maintains a number of separate physician offices in the greater Lewiston-Auburn area. As SaCHS employees, their physician services were leased to Community Clinical Services (CCS), one of several subsidiaries under the SaCHS health care umbrella. The contracts at issue are between SaCHS and each defendant. This is essentially a "buy-out" to be The Agreement specifically refers to it as 2 representing SaCHS's "reasonable liquidated damages, and is not a penalty." Agreement, <[ 17C.3 Because the physicians do not fall into anyone of the recognized exceptions, saCHS claims it is entitled to injunctive relief in addition to any other rights or remedies it may have, including attorney fees and costs. Even after separation from SOCHS, each defendant could continue to practice locally without restriction by paying $100,000 to SOCHS as liquidated damages. Thus, the limitation on practice is not absolute. In a separate section of the Agreement, paragraph 17B, the parties mutually agreed that the restrictive covenant "is reasonable as to duration, geographic area and the nature of the practice protected." Agreement, '[ 17B. It is undisputed that the defendants do not fall into any of these exceptions. within a radius of 25 miles of 99 Campus Avenue, Lewiston, Maine, for a period of two (2) years from the date of termination." Agreement, exhibits 71, 72, 73, & ' physician may practice medicine in breach of this restrictive covenant with the written consent of the Employer's Chief Executive Officer." Agreement, <[ 17A. The plaintiff seeks to invoke the restrictions of paragraph 17A which, in essence, prohibits the defendants from directly or indirectly practicing medicine "in the employ of or under contract with Central Maine Healthcare Corporation (CMHC) or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries. The defendants voluntarily terminated their relationship with SOCHS on December 31, 2006. Paragraph 17 of the Agreements places limitations upon the defendants if they separate their services from SOCHS without consent or in violation of the agreement. Auburn area however, the plaintiff says that the defendants do not fall into any of the exceptions. 2 To the extent that the court sets out facts, they constitute findings of fact by a preponderance of evidence unless otherwise noted. The court is not aware of the terms, conditions, or limitations. Under some circumstances, there would be no penalty or restrictions upon the defendants continuing to practice in the Lewiston 1 During the trial process, the court was informed that Central Maine Medical Center (CMMC), the defendants' current employer has agreed to indemnify the defendants for any damages that may be awarded to plaintiff, even though it is not a party. (See exhibits 71, 72, and 73 entitled "Agreement for Professional Services") In all material aspects they were identical and provided a section for "Limitation of Practice." Each of the defendants terminated their employment with SOCHS effective December 31, 2006, at which time each of them became employees of Central Maine Medical Center (CMMC).2 Paragraph 15 of the employment agreements (Agreement) addresses the issue of termination by either or both parties. (SOCHS) and the defendants entered into employment contracts in 2003. DECISION AND JUDGMENT DOUGLAS FARRAGO, MD., CAROLYN KASE, D.O., and RAYMOND STONE, D.O., Defendants This is an action tried to the court wherein the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief to enforce the terms of an employment contract.1 Sisters of Charity Health System, Inc. SISTERS OF CHARITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Plaintiff v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |