DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: |
41597-6 |
Title of Case: |
Robert Emerick, Respondent V Cardiac Study Center, Inc., Appellant |
File Date: |
02/28/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Pierce County Superior Court |
Docket No: | 09-2-13834-1 |
Judgment or order under review |
Date filed: | 12/03/2010 |
Judge signing: | Honorable Frederick Fleming |
JUDGES
------
Authored by | David H. Armstrong |
Concurring: | J. Robin Hunt |
| Jill M Johanson |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| Valarie Standefer Zeeck |
| Gordon Thomas Honeywell |
| Po Box 1157 |
| Tacoma, WA, 98401-1157 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| Stuart Charles Morgan |
| Attorney at Law |
| 1201 Pacific Ave Ste 1200 |
| Tacoma, WA, 98402-4395 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
ROBERT EMERICK, No. 41597-6-II
Respondent, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
v.
CARDIAC STUDY CENTER, INC., P.S.,
Appellants.
Armstrong, P.J. -- When Dr. Robert Emerick joined Cardiac Study Center's specialty
practice, he signed a covenant not to compete with Cardiac if he left the practice. Cardiac
terminated Emerick, and he filed this action seeking a declaration that the covenant was
unreasonable and thus unenforceable. The trial court agreed and granted Emerick summary
judgment, invalidating most of the covenant's provisions. On appeal, Cardiac argues that the trial
court misapplied Washington law in granting the summary judgment. We agree and, therefore,
reverse and remand.
FACTS
Cardiac is a medical practice group of approximately 15 cardiologists. The practice has
provided care to patients with heart disease in Pierce County since 1966. The practice has four
offices, each near a hospital. The hospitals serve as a referral source for Cardiac.
Dr. Robert Emerick practiced medicine in Memphis, Tennessee for approximately three
No. 41597-6-II
years before joining Cardiac. In February 2002, Cardiac hired him as an employee. In February
2004, Emerick became a shareholder of Cardiac. At that time, Emerick signed a shareholder
employment agreement, which included the covenant not to compete at issue here. The covenant
states that if a doctor leaves the group, he promises not to practice competitively in Pierce County
or Federal Way for a period of five years. The covenant specifically provides:
(e) Non-Competition. . . . The Employee further recognizes and acknowledges that
because the goodwill of the Corporation's business is a valuable asset, and because
the solicitation of patients of referral sources or persons or entities with whom the
Corporation contracts, by the Employee, after the Employee has ceased to be
employed by the Corporation, will cause irreparable harm to the goodwill of the
Corporation, the Corporation would not continue to employ the Employee unless
it is assured that such solicitation will not occur. The Employee therefore agrees
and covenants that during the Employee's employment by the Corporation
and for sixty (60) full months after termination of such employment for any reason,
the Employee will not, directly or indirectly, (i) anywhere within Pierce County
and Federal Way, Washington ("Restricted Area") engage in the practice of
cardiac medicine in any manner which is directly competitive with any aspect of the
business of the Corporation as presently conducted or as said business may evolve
in the ordinary course of business between the date of this Agreement and the
expiration of this covenant not to compete, whether or not using any Confidential
Information, (ii) anywhere in the Restricted Area, have any business dealings or
contracts, except those which demonstrably do not relate to or compete with the
business or interests of the Corporation, with any then existing patient, customer
or client (or party with whom the Corporation contracts) of the Corporation or
any person or firm which has been contacted or identified by the Corporation as a
potential customer or client of the Corporation; or (iii) be an employee, employer,
consultant, agent, officer, director, partner, trustee or shareholder of any person or
entity that does any of the activities just listed. Provided, however, nothing herein
shall preclude a patient from selecting a provider of their choice.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 19-20.
During oral argument below, Cardiac conceded that Emerick should be allowed to
practice in Federal Way; Cardiac suggested a geographic restriction of a five-mile radius around
the existing Cardiac centers. Cardiac also conceded that Emerick should be allowed to see his
2
No. 41597-6-II
former patients from Cardiac.
Emerick specializes in interventional cardiology.1 He explained that Cardiac has six other
interventional cardiologists. Approximately five other interventional cardiologists practice in
Pierce County, and three practice in Federal Way. Cardiac submitted evidence that the distinction
between interventional cardiologists and non-interventional cardiologists is not critical in
determining an appropriate physician-to-population ratio. Further, Cardiac presented evidence
that Pierce County and Federal Way have an excess of cardiologists for the population's need.2
In August 2005, patients and other medical providers began to complain to Cardiac about
Emerick's conduct (CP at 522 (stricken)).3 Because of Emerick's conduct, some physicians
stopped referring patients to Cardiac (CP at 137 (stricken)). Cardiac's Professional Conduct
Committee met with Emerick to address the complaints (CP at 137 (stricken)). The Committee
1 Interventional cardiology provides patients with a nonsurgical alternative to coronary bypass
surgery. Often, patients participating in interventional cardiology, rather than surgical options,
will need longer term care and periodic adjustments to treatment.
2 The studies cited show (1) for every 100,000 persons, there is a need of 2.6 to 4.22
cardiologists; and (2) the Pierce County and Federal Way area has approximately 4.4 cardiologists
per 100,000 persons.
3 Emerick moved to strike Cardiac's declarations setting forth its history with him. The trial court
struck as hearsay large portions of Cardiac's declarations explaining why it terminated Emerick.
Cardiac does not assign error to this evidentiary ruling, but it indirectly challenges the ruling
because it claims the court should have considered the parties' history. Most of the assertions in
these declarations do not appear to be hearsay ("a statement, other than one made by the
declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the
matter asserted."). ER 801(c). Rather, the statements simply document the complaints Cardiac
received about Emerick and Cardiac's responses to the complaints. Accordingly, we report the
history for the same purpose, noting the parts the trial court struck. The truthfulness of the
complaints is not an issue in our resolution of the case.
3
No. 41597-6-II
met again after more complaints were received, yet Emerick's behavior did not change (CP at 137-
40 (stricken)). In February 2009, the Conduct Committee recommended that the Board discipline
Emerick (CP at 147 (stricken)). On July 1, 2009, Cardiac's Board of Directors terminated
Emerick (CP at 147 (stricken)).
Emerick remained a shareholder until September 30, 2009.
Procedure
Emerick sued Cardiac seeking a declaration that the covenant was unenforceable.
Emerick moved for summary judgment, arguing that the covenant was void as against public
policy.4 In March 2010, the trial court granted Emerick's motion, ruling that the covenant was
unenforceable because it violated public policy. Although the trial court's ruling appeared to void
the covenant in its entirety, the court also ordered Emerick not to solicit Cardiac patients. And
the court ordered the parties to remedy the effects of a letter Cardiac sent to patients regarding
Emerick leaving the practice. Then, on December 3, 2010, the trial court entered findings of fact
and conclusions of law, concluding in part that the covenant's temporal scope was "overly
broad." CP at 1389. The court permanently enjoined Cardiac from enforcing the covenant,
which "bar[s] Dr. Emerick from serving patients whom Dr. Emerick does not solicit, and has not
solicited." CP at 1390. The trial court awarded Emerick fees and costs totaling approximately
$60,000.
4 Cardiac also moved for summary judgment.
4
No. 41597-6-II
ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Review
We review summary judgment de novo. Trimble v. Wash. State Univ., 140 Wn.2d 88, 92-
93, 993 P.2d 259 (2000). Whether a covenant not compete is reasonable is a question of law.
See Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. Wohlman, 19 Wn. App. 670, 684, 578 P.2d 530 (1978).
II. Noncompetition Provision
Courts will enforce a covenant not to compete if it is reasonable and lawful. Wood v.
May, 73 Wn.2d 307, 312, 438 P.2d 587 (1968). We test reasonableness by asking (1) whether
the restraint is necessary to protect the employer's business or goodwill, (2) whether it imposes
on the employee any greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to secure the employer's
business or goodwill, and (3) whether enforcing the covenant would injure the public through loss
of the employee's service and skill to the extent that the court should not enforce the covenant,
i.e., whether it violates public policy. Perry v. Moran, 109 Wn.2d 691, 698, 748 P.2d 224
(1987), judgment modified on reconsideration, 111 Wn.2d 885 (1989).
If the trial court determines that certain terms of the covenant are unreasonable, the entire
covenant does not fail. Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 312. The court should still seek to enforce the
covenant to the extent reasonably possible to accomplish the contract's purpose. Wood, 73
Wn.2d at 312-13. Specifically, the court considers "whether partial enforcement is possible
without injury to the public and without injustice to the parties." Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 313
(distinguishing Washington law from the so called "blue-pencil test," which requires the changes
to the contract to still be grammatically viable).
5
No. 41597-6-II
A. Necessary for Employer
A restrictive covenant protects an employer's business as warranted by the nature of
employment. Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 310 (citing 9 A.L.R. 1467-68). An employee who joins an
established business gains access to his employer's customers and "'acquire[s] valuable
information as to the nature and character of the business. . . . '" Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 310
(quoting 9 A.L.R. 1467-68). This exposure to the employer's clients and business model allows
the employee to compete with his employer after he leaves the employment. Wood, 73 Wn.2d at
310 (citing A.L.R. 1467-68). To protect the employer's business, equity allows the employer to
require the employee to sign a noncompetition agreement. Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 310.
Specifically, an employer has a "legitimate interest in protecting its existing client base"
and in prohibiting the employee from taking its clients. Perry, 109 Wn.2d at 700. In Perry, our
Supreme Court considered an accounting firm's restrictive covenant with a newly hired
accountant. Perry, 109 Wn.2d at 692. Moran, the new accountant, had worked as an accountant
for a significant period of time before joining the firm. Perry, 109 Wn.2d at 692. The court
recognized the firm's legitimate interest in protecting its client base after Moran left. Perry, 109
Wn.2d at 700; see also Knight, Vale & Gregory v. McDaniel, 37 Wn. App. 366, 369-70, 680
P.2d 448 (1984) (recognizing a firm's interest in maintaining a client base built over many years).
Courts also consider an employer's investment in training a newly minted professional. See
Ashley v. Lance, 75 Wn.2d 471, 475-77, 451 P.2d 916 (1969) ("'A young professional man may
be willing to trade his future right to compete in a given community for an immediate and
lucrative share in an established practice.'") (quoting McCallum v. Asbury, 393 P.2d 774, 777
6
No. 41597-6-II
(1964)), affirmed on other grounds in Ashley v. Lance, 80 Wn.2d 274, 493 P.2d 1242 (1972);
Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 310-11 (discussing the substantial investment the master horseshoer made in
training the apprentice).
When the trial court made its oral ruling, it did not discuss Cardiac's protected interest in
its client base or its investment in Emerick. In its subsequent written conclusions of law,
however, the trial court found that Cardiac was entitled to "minimal" protection under the
covenant because Cardiac did not teach Emerick his skills and knowledge. CP at 1388. Similar
to Perry, where Moran was already trained as an accountant, Emerick was a trained cardiologist
before he joined Cardiac. But the trial court's focus on Emerick's medical training in analyzing
Cardiac's protected interest was too narrow. Cardiac provided Emerick with an immediate client
base and established referral sources when he moved to the area. Moreover, Emerick had access
to Cardiac's business model and goodwill. These are all protectable business interests that the
trial court should have considered in assessing the covenant's enforceability.
B. Scope of Restraint
The second reasonableness factor focuses on the extent to which the covenant adversely
affects the employee's ability to earn a living. See McDaniel, 37 Wn. App. at 370 (a court
carefully considers a restrictive covenant because of a concern about freedom of employment).
Generally, a court determines the reasonableness of a covenant by analyzing its geographic and
temporal restrictions. See Wood, 73 Wn.2d 311-12.
Having determined that Cardiac had only minimal interests to protect, the trial court
concluded without explanation that the covenant's temporal scope was too broad and that the six
7
No. 41597-6-II
months Emerick had not practiced was "ample time" to protect Cardiac's financial interests and
allow it to hire a replacement. CP at 1389. The trial court's discussion of the geographic
restriction was equally brief, concluding that "[the covenant] would bar Dr. Emerick from
practicing in countless cities throughout Pierce County and in Federal Way, where Dr. Emerick
never worked as a [Cardiac] doctor; and it would bar Dr. Emerick from practicing cardiac
medicine." CP at 1388-89.
The trial court's analysis of the scope of the covenant is flawed for several reasons. As we
stated, the court erred in determining that Cardiac had only minimal interests to protect. And this
error allowed the court to dispose of the scope analysis without balancing Cardiac's actual
protectable business interest against the time and geographic restrictions on Emerick's ability to
earn a living. Moreover, the court made no attempt to save as much of the covenant as could
reasonably and fairly be enforced. Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 314 (explaining that a covenant should be
enforced to the extent it is reasonable).
C. Public Policy
Finally, public policy requires a court to consider possible harm to the public from
enforcing the covenant. McDaniel, 37 Wn. App. at 369. Such harm may include restraint of
trade, limits on employment opportunities, and denial of public access to necessary services.
Organon, Inc. v. Hepler, 23 Wn. App. 432, 436 n.1, 595 P.2d 1314 (1979); McDaniel, 37 Wn.
App. at 370. But the court must still balance these concerns against the employer's right to
protect his business. Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 310; see generally Perry, 109 Wn.2d at 700 ("A bargain
by an employee not to compete with the employer . . . is valid."); Organon, Inc., 23 Wn. App. at
8
No. 41597-6-II
436 n.1 ("[A]n employer should certainly have the right . . . to condition employment on the
employee's promise to refrain from certain activities.").
In its oral ruling, the trial court explained its public policy analysis: "I don't think it's fair .
. . or just to prevent [Emerick] from practicing medicine and the skills that have took [sic] him so
long to acquire . . . I'm not going to enforce the non-compete agreement." RP (Mar. 5, 2010) at
23. The court's conclusions of law are similarly broad: "[a] non-competition agreement that
professes to bar a specialized physician from providing care to unsolicited patients has public
policy implications" and, in enforcing a covenant, "the Court has considered the fairness to the
public." CP at 1389. But the court failed to apply these concepts specifically to the covenant at
issue by addressing, for example, the risk that patients in the geographic area would be denied
access to physicians practicing in Emerick's specialty.5 Nor did the court attempt to balance these
concerns against Cardiac's protectable business interest. Perry, 109 Wn.2d at 698.
Emerick argues, in effect, that such balancing is unnecessary, citing cases from other
jurisdictions that have either declined to enforce or have strictly construed restrictive covenants
between physicians because of the significant and personal relationship that exists in a doctor-
patient setting. Ohio Urology, Inc. v. Poll, 594 N.E.2d 1027 (Ohio 1991); Valley Med.
Specialists v. Farber, 982 P.2d 1277 (Ariz. 1999); Intermountain Eye & Laser Ctrs., v. Miller,
127 P.3d 121 (Idaho 2005). Some states have legislatively precluded restrictive covenants in a
medical setting. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(3); Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 2707; Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 112, § 12X. Emerick also cites an American Medical Association opinion discouraging
5 As stated, Cardiac submitted evidence that the geographic area it served has an excess of
cardiologists.
9
No. 41597-6-II
restrictive covenants in the medical profession because they interfere with continuity of care.
American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 9.02, Restrictive Covenants and
the Practice of Medicine, June 1998.
But Washington courts have not yet held that restrictive covenants between physicians are
unenforceable. In Ashley, our Supreme Court considered a covenant among physicians where
four of the five partners in a medical group decided to dissolve the partnership and open a
competing clinic 300 feet from the original clinic. Ashley, 75 Wn.2d at 473. The court explained
that restrictive covenants are common among professionals because they allow a new professional
to step into an already established practice while protecting the employer from future competition.
Ashley, 75 Wn.2d at 476 (citing McCallum, 393 P.2d at 777 (Or. 1964)). Thus, to the extent the
trial court relied on authority from other jurisdictions, it erred in invalidating the covenant on
public policy grounds.
In conclusion, the trial court erred in evaluating Cardiac's protectable business interest. In
part, due to this initial error, the court failed to properly analyze the scope and public policy
factors included in the test for enforceability, and the court failed to address whether the covenant
could be saved to some extent.
Finally, the trial court's oral and written rulings contain fundamental inconsistencies. In its
March oral ruling, the court invalidated the covenant in its entirety on public policy grounds, yet it
ordered Emerick not to solicit Cardiac patients. In December, the court's written conclusions
prohibited Cardiac from preventing Emerick from serving patients he had not solicited, thereby
implicitly allowing Cardiac to prevent Emerick from soliciting patients in its area. The court then
10
No. 41597-6-II
concluded that the temporal restriction in the covenant had expired. But if the covenant was
invalid on public policy grounds or had expired, there was no reason to restrict Emerick's actions
or grant Cardiac relief. The trial court's rulings cannot be reconciled.
We reverse the order granting summary judgment, vacate the attorney fees award to
Emerick, and remand for further proceedings. We also award Cardiac its statutory attorney fees
on appeal.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it
is so ordered.
Armstrong, P.J.
We concur:
Hunt, J.
Johanson, J.
11
|