Procedural History
In this case, the plaintiff, Southernmost Foot and Ankle Specialists, is suing John F Torregrosa, the defendant, in an appeal from a final judgment granting declaratory relief.
Issue(s)
The legal questions presented in this case include:
1. Whether there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court with respect to rendering a final ruling that failed to put into effect the complete two-year term of the restraining covenant, that looked after geographic restrictions that were tighter compared to those enclosed within the oral declarations of the trial court
2. Whether there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court owing to the modification of the period and interval of the restraining covenant from 2 years to 1 year devoid of providing a validation or justification for the modification
3. Whether the trial court did not have the evidence to back up its discoveries that the public interest in permitting Dr. Torregrosa to sustain his staff civil liberties at Fisherman’s and Mariner’s Hospitals overshadows the interest of Southernmost in implementing its restrictive covenant
Facts
Employer sought after pronouncement that restrictive covenants in doctor’s employment contract were enforceable. Succeeding a bench trial, the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Barbara S. Levenson, J., abridged...
Employer appealed.
Applicable Rule(s) of Law
The court states that the rules it will use to decide the legal questions include contracts 116(2), 137(4), and 141(3).
Holding
1. Evidence by employer’s principals instituted a prima facie case that restrictive covenant was sensibly compulsory to safeguard employer’s authentic business interests
2. There was abuse of discretion by the trial court through the modification of the interval of restrictive covenant from 2 years to 1 year
3. The actions by the trial court were within its discretion when, in its verbal declarations, diminished geographic restriction of restrictive covenant, but not when it, in its eventual ruling, all the more diminished geographic restriction
4. Proof supported discovery that public interest in permitting doctor to sustain his staff privileges at hospitals outweighed the interest of the employer in carrying out restrictive covenant
Reasoning
Deposition testimony that hospital had no concern in consequence of employer’s action in quest of declaration that restrictive covenant in doctor’s employment contract was enforceable was not pertinent to issue of whether it was in public interest for…
