2020 Ohio 6865
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Castillo-Sang, a cardiothoracic surgeon hired by The Christ Hospital Cardiovascular Associates, LLC (TCHCVA) in 2015, specializes in minimally invasive mitral valve repair/replacement ("Mitral Valve") and LVAD implantation.
- His employment agreement contained a 12‑month post‑termination noncompete covering Hamilton County and contiguous counties, and broad confidentiality and non‑solicitation provisions.
- In late 2019 Castillo‑Sang resigned and accepted employment at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Edgewood, Kentucky (within the restricted area), and sued in Hamilton County seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction that the covenant was unenforceable.
- After a two‑day hearing the trial court granted a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining TCHCVA from enforcing the noncompete, finding it overbroad, an undue hardship, and contrary to the public interest.
- TCHCVA appealed, arguing the injunction was erroneous because the covenant protected legitimate confidential information and that damages or other employment options were available to Castillo‑Sang.
- The First District affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on merits (Raimonde test) | Covenant is overbroad, seeks to eliminate ordinary competition, Castillo‑Sang has no confidential trade secrets from TCHCVA | Covenant protects TCHCVA's recruiting/growth plans, pricing, and referral network—so restriction is necessary | Court held clear‑and‑convincing evidence supported that covenant was greater than needed, imposed undue hardship, and aimed at ordinary competition (likely unenforceable) |
| Irreparable harm if injunction denied | Would have to relocate away from wife and young children or accept impractical commute; harm to ability to practice locally | Monetary damages or out‑of‑area employment (Mt. Carmel in Columbus) available | Court found relocation/commute would cause irreparable harm (injunction appropriate) |
| Third‑party harm from injunction | No unjustified third‑party harm identified | Argued local patients have other providers nearby | Court found no unjustified third‑party harm identified by TCHCVA |
| Public interest | Public benefits from access to minimally invasive Mitral Valve surgery (St. Elizabeth lacked a surgeon performing it) | Patients have other regional options; TCHCVA and nearby centers can provide care | Court found public interest favored injunction because minimally invasive option increased patient access and benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21, 325 N.E.2d 544 (Ohio 1975) (establishes reasonableness test for covenants not to compete)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham, 140 Ohio App.3d 260, 747 N.E.2d 268 (1st Dist. 2000) (criteria for preliminary injunction)
- Ohio Urology, Inc. v. Poll, 72 Ohio App.3d 446, 594 N.E.2d 1027 (10th Dist. 1991) (heightened scrutiny for physician restrictive covenants)
- Sammarco v. Anthem Ins. Cos., 131 Ohio App.3d 544, 723 N.E.2d 128 (1st Dist. 1998) (physician mobility and public‑interest concerns in noncompetes)
- Premier Assoc., Ltd. v. Loper, 149 Ohio App.3d 660, 778 N.E.2d 630 (1st Dist. 2002) (upholding reasonable physician noncompete)
- Garano v. State, 37 Ohio St.3d 171, 524 N.E.2d 496 (Ohio 1988) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard on injunctive relief)