Ansaarie v. First Coast Cardiovascular Inst., P.A.
252 So. 3d 287
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- FCCI, a cardiovascular and sleep-disorder medical practice, invested since 2013 to build a cardiology practice and goodwill in Putnam County, including marketing, staffing, and a catheterization lab near Putnam County Medical Center (PCMC).
- Dr. Imraan Ansaarie was recruited and employed by FCCI under a contract containing a two-year, five-mile noncompete and a non‑solicitation clause; he became PCMC cath lab medical director.
- While still employed, Ansaarie formed an independent practice in Putnam County; FCCI gave notice his employment would end March 23, 2017.
- After termination, Ansaarie continued treating patients at his practice and at PCMC; FCCI alleged loss of referrals and patient transfers to Ansaarie.
- FCCI obtained a temporary injunction barring Ansaarie from providing cardiovascular services within five miles, treating patients at PCMC, and soliciting FCCI patients/referral sources; Ansaarie appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCCI proved legitimate business interests (existing/prospective patients, referral sources, goodwill) to support enforcement of restrictive covenants | FCCI: substantial relationships with existing patients, investment in local practice, referral sources, and goodwill in Putnam County justify protection | Ansaarie: challenges some interests (argued referral sources and PCMC relationship not protected); notes no proof of "specific" prospective patients | Court: FCCI proved legitimate interests in existing patients, goodwill, and referral sources; need not reach PCMC relationship |
| Whether the restraints (2 years, 5 miles; non-solicitation) were reasonably necessary to protect those interests | FCCI: investments and recruitment of Ansaarie generated patient base and goodwill; restraints reasonably tailored | Ansaarie: did not argue below that time/geography were overbroad; disputes direct solicitation evidence | Court: restraints were reasonably necessary; Ansaarie failed to rebut prima facie showing |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of solicitation or misconduct to justify non-solicitation relief | FCCI: decline in referrals and patient requests to transfer files showed enforcement necessary to prevent unfair competition | Ansaarie: no direct evidence he solicited FCCI patients | Court: circumstantial evidence (decline in referrals, patient transfers, continued treatment at PCMC) sufficed to support injunction |
| Whether irreparable harm and other injunction prerequisites were met | FCCI: violation of enforceable covenant presumes irreparable harm; no adequate remedy at law | Ansaarie: failed to overcome presumption of irreparable injury | Court: presumption applied; Ansaarie did not rebut; other injunction prongs satisfied; injunction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So.3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA) (standard of review and injunction prerequisites)
- White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla., LLC, 226 So.3d 774 (Fla. 2017) (referral sources can be a legitimate business interest depending on context)
- University of Florida, Bd. of Trustees v. Sanal, 837 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA) ("specific" modifies prospective patients requirement)
- Litwinczuk v. Palm Beach Cardiovascular Clinic, L.C., 939 So.2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA) (existing patient relationships support injunction)
- Southernmost Foot & Ankle Specialists, P.A. v. Torregrosa, 891 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA) (investment in developing a local practice constitutes a legitimate business interest)
- Smart Pharmacy, Inc. v. Viccari, 213 So.3d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA) (employer may enforce non-solicitation where customers are solicited)
- Infinity Home Care, 180 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA) (decline in referrals after employee departure supports necessity of enforcement)
- Environmental Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So.3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA) (violation of covenant supports irreparable harm presumption)
- Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Hausinger, 927 So.2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA) (presumed harm includes damage to longstanding customer relationships)