Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. and Sylvie Forjet v. Amedisys Holding, LLC
180 So. 3d 1060
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Amedisys employed RN Sylvie Forjet (Jan 2013–Jun 2014) as a Care Transition Coordinator; she signed a Protective Covenants Agreement with non-compete and non-solicitation provisions limited to Broward County and one year post‑employment.
- Forjet’s duties focused on cultivating and maintaining relationships with case managers and clinics (referral sources) that sent patients to Amedisys for home health services; Amedisys invested time and funds in those relationships.
- Forjet previously developed Cleveland Clinic referral relationships while at other employers; she honored a prior employer’s covenant, then solicited Cleveland Clinic referrals for Amedisys while employed there.
- After Forjet left Amedisys to work for competitor Infinity, she solicited the same referral sources; Amedisys alleged referrals from Cleveland Clinic declined and sued for injunctions enforcing the restrictive covenants (breach against Forjet; tortious interference against Infinity).
- The trial court granted a one‑year temporary injunction, finding referral sources are a protectable legitimate business interest under Fla. Stat. §542.335 and that enforcement was reasonably necessary; Infinity appealed, urging reliance on Florida Hematology & Oncology v. Tummala.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are referral sources for home health services a "legitimate business interest" under §542.335? | Referral sources are specific, cultivated relationships essential to Amedisys’s business and thus protectable. | Referral sources supply unidentified prospective patients and thus fall outside the statute’s "specific prospective patients" requirement (per Tummala/Sanal). | Referral sources are a protectable legitimate business interest under §542.335; court declines to follow Tummala. |
| Did Amedisys plead/prove enforcement of the restraint was reasonably necessary? | Forjet’s solicitation of the same referral sources and the post‑departure decline in Cleveland Clinic referrals support necessity and irreparable harm. | Forjet had preexisting relationships with Cleveland Clinic; Amedisys failed to quantify harm or show unfair advantage gained during Amedisys employment. | Amedisys met its burden; Infinity did not rebut the presumption of irreparable harm and failed to show insufficiency. |
| Were the contractual restraints (geographic/scope/duration) reasonable? | The covenant’s one‑year duration and Broward County restriction were tailored to protect Amedisys’s interests. | The restraint is overbroad because it would prohibit use of long‑standing personal contacts. | The record supports the trial court’s finding that the restraints were limited in scope and reasonable. |
| Does this decision conflict with Tummala / effect on precedent? | N/A (Amedisys argued for protection of referral sources). | Relied on Tummala to argue referral sources are not protected. | The Fourth District certifies conflict with Tummala and affirms the injunction, declining to follow Tummala. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southernmost Foot & Ankle Specialists, P.A. v. Torregrosa, 891 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (upheld protection of referral doctors as legitimate business interest)
- Florida Hematology & Oncology v. Tummala, 927 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (held referring physicians are not a protectable legitimate business interest under §542.335)
- University of Florida Bd. of Trs. v. Sanal, 837 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (construed §542.335 to require relationships with specific, identifiable patients)
- Jon Juan Salon, Inc. v. Acosta, 922 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reasonableness standard for restrictive covenants in injunction context)