Hiles v. Americare Home Therapy, Inc.
183 So. 3d 449
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Hiles was hired as a home health liaison by Americare and signed a Non-Compete/Non-Solicitation/Nondisclosure agreement that barred solicitation and competition for 12 months and prohibited disclosure of confidential information for 5 years.
- Hiles emailed Americare patient and referral-source information from her work account to her personal email shortly before resigning and then began working for direct competitor Doctors’ Choice (Halifax).
- Americare sought a temporary injunction alleging Hiles took confidential information, solicited Americare’s referral sources, and was violating the restrictive covenants.
- The trial court entered a temporary injunction enjoining Hiles from using Americare information, soliciting employees/clients/referral sources, competing within the defined territory, and violating any covenant; bond was set at $5,200.
- On appeal the Fifth District reviewed whether referral sources and the copied emails constituted the “legitimate business interests” required by Fla. Stat. § 542.335 to support enforcement of the covenants, and whether the injunction complied with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether referral sources qualify as a "legitimate business interest" under § 542.335 | Americare: referral sources are its business lifeblood and thus a protectable legitimate interest | Hiles: referral sources merely supply unidentified prospective patients and are not protected per Tummala | Court: referral sources do not qualify; trial court erred to the extent it protected referral sources |
| Whether possession/use of emailed business/patient information justified enforcement of non-compete | Americare: emails and database access are valuable confidential business information warranting injunction | Hiles: emails only reflect information she already saw in employment and mainly identify referral sources (not protected) | Court: record lacks showing that protecting the emails justified the non-compete; injunction overbroad on this basis |
| Whether the injunction complied with Rule 1.610(c)’s requirement to describe restrained acts in reasonable detail | Americare: injunction’s provisions are sufficiently specific to prevent misuse | Hiles: some provisions (especially a catch-all restraint) are too vague and reference the agreement rather than describing acts | Court: catch‑all provision enjoining “otherwise violating any of the restrictive covenants” violated Rule 1.610(c) and must be stricken; some provisions must be narrowed or removed |
| Whether injunction should bar Hiles from working for competitor in territory (non-compete) | Americare: non-compete is necessary to protect relationships and confidential information | Hiles: non-compete is not reasonably necessary given lack of protectable interest in referral sources/emails | Court: non-compete prohibition on working for competitors in the territory was not reasonably necessary and must be stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida Hematology & Oncology v. Tummala, 927 So.2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (referral physicians do not constitute a statutory legitimate business interest under § 542.335)
- Univ. of Fla., Bd. of Trustees v. Sanal, 837 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (to be a protected prospective patient, relationship must be substantial and with an identifiable individual)
- Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. v. Amedisys Holding, LLC, 180 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (held referral sources may be a legitimate business interest; certified conflict with Tummala)
- Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467 (Fla. 6th DCA 2002) (Rule 1.610(c) requires injunctions to describe restrained acts with reasonable detail)