Uro-Care, PA v. MONTFORD, MD, 99-959.

• Decision Date: 13 October 1999
• Docket Number: No. 99-959.,99-959.
• Citation: Uro-Care, PA v. MONTFORD, MD, 767 So.2d 466 (Fla. App. 1999)
• Parties: URO-CARE, P.A., a Florida corporation, and Uro-Medix, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Barbara MONTFORD, M.D., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

767 So.2d 466

URO-CARE, P.A., a Florida corporation, and Uro-Medix, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v.Barbara MONTFORD, M.D., Appellee.

No. 99-959.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 13, 1999.

Greenberg Traurig and Arthur J. England, Jr. and Elliot H. Scherker, Miami, for appellants.

Williams & Associates and Thomasina H. Williams, Miami, for appellee.

Before COPE, LEVY, and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, former employers of appellee, a medical doctor, sought a preliminary injunction to enforce a covenant-not-to-compete which appellee signed when she began working for appellants.During the hearing on appellants' Motion for Temporary Injunction, the appellee raised several issues in an effort to have the motion denied.In denying appellants' motion for preliminary injunction, the trial court only cited one of the grounds argued by the appellee, to-wit: enforcement of the covenant was contrary to "the public health, safety and welfare."§ 542.335(f), Fla. Stat.(1997).However, the record reflects that the sole ground cited by the trial court for denying the preliminary injunction relates to "patient preference" rather than "the public health, safety, and welfare."Cf.Lloyd Damsey, M.D., P.A. v. Mankowitz,339 So.2d 282(Fla. 3d DCA1976), cert. denied,345 So.2d 421(Fla.1977)(finding that the covenant would jeopardize the public health of the community where the testimony presented revealed a compelling need for the employee's services as a surgeon in the area).Accordingly, the Order under review must be reversed, with this cause being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

On remand, the trial court should rule on each of the other grounds raised by the appellee in opposition to appellants' motion for preliminary injunction.SeeHarrison v. Palm Harbor MRI, Inc.,703 So.2d 1117(Fla. 2d DCA1997);Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin,482 So.2d 486(Fla....