Salamon v. Anesthesia Pain Care Consultants
| Decision Date | 15 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D08-888.,4D08-888. |
| Parties | Joel SALAMON, M.D., Appellant, v. ANESTHESIA PAIN CARE CONSULTANTS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
v.
ANESTHESIA PAIN CARE CONSULTANTS, INC., Appellee.
J. David Huskey, Jr., of McGee & Huskey, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Elliot H. Scherker, Alan T. Dimond and Kerri L. McNulty of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
[10 So.3d 1113]
MAY, J.
A doctor appeals a temporary injunction enforcing a non-compete provision of an employment contract with his former employer. He argues the trial court erred in entering the temporary injunction for several reasons. We disagree and affirm.
The doctor entered into an employment agreement with his former employer, which contained non-compete and non-solicitation provisions. The parties agreed that the restrictive covenants were fair and reasonable, and reasonably related to protect the legitimate business interest of the employer. In the event of a breach of the restrictive covenants, the employer was entitled to obtain a temporary and permanent restraining order.
The employer terminated the doctor on October 18, 2006. The doctor then filed an action for an accounting of the employer's finances and contested his "for-cause" termination. The employer filed a counterclaim for damages and a motion for temporary injunction. The doctor's defense to the injunction was that his employer first breached the agreement prior to his termination.
The doctor filed a third request for production, which sought the production of documents generated by the employer for a time period after the doctor's termination. The trial court sustained the employer's relevancy objection to the third request for production based upon a provision in the employment agreement that was interpreted as a forfeiture of any compensation after the doctor's termination. The trial court denied, without prejudice, a subsequent motion to reconsider its decision.
The evidence at the evidentiary hearing on the temporary injunction established that the doctor had no professional relationships in the Broward medical market-place when he began his employment and left with numerous patient contacts and a network of referring physicians. He admitted treating the employer's former patients and using confidential proprietary information that he acquired from the former employer in his current practice.
In defense, the doctor argued that the employer had first breached the employment agreement by: (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial