Bariana v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., D/B/A Tampa General Hospital
2D2024-1355
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.May 16, 2025Background
- Dr. Christopher Bariana, a thoracic surgeon, was employed by Tampa General and executed an employment agreement with noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses covering several counties in Florida.
- After alleging mistreatment and unlawful retaliation, Bariana resigned from Tampa General and began working at Bayfront Health Medical Group in Pinellas County, which Tampa General claimed violated his restrictive covenants.
- Tampa General sought and obtained a temporary injunction from the trial court to restrict Bariana from practicing in specific counties and soliciting Tampa General’s patients and employees, citing protection of business interests.
- Bariana argued that the restrictive covenants were unenforceable under Florida statutory law (section 542.336) because he was the only physician providing his specialty in Pinellas County, and such covenants unduly restricted patient access and increased costs.
- At the injunction hearing, testimony established that Bariana was the only physician performing certain specialized thoracic procedures in Pinellas County, and Bayfront previously lacked such capabilities, which harmed local patient care.
- The appellate court reversed the injunction, finding the covenants invalid under statutory and public policy grounds, holding that enforcement would harm public health by restricting access to necessary specialist care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of Restrictive Covenant under 542.336 | Not supported by legitimate business interest due to unique specialty presence | Covenants protect business interests/licensed coverage | Covenant unenforceable; Bariana was only specialist |
| Public Policy Exception to Enforcement | Public health outweighs Tampa General’s interests | Company investment and goodwill justify enforcement | Public health outweighs business interest |
| Adequacy of Evidence for Public Harm | Delayed care and patient harm documented | Lack of alternative providers disputed | Evidence supported patients had no other local options |
| Applicability of Statute to Facts (which entity/county) | Statute applies; only specialist, regardless of entity | Statute only applies if entity employs all specialists in county | Plain language favors Bariana; statute applies to facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Surgery Ctr. Holdings, Inc. v. Guirguis, 318 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (standard for granting temporary injunction and review)
- Lloyd Damsey, M.D., P.A. v. Mankowitz, 339 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (restrictive covenants in healthcare can be unenforceable when they harm public health)
- Joseph Spine, P.A. v. Moulton, 346 So. 3d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (public policy must substantially outweigh enforcement of a restrictive covenant)