& SC16-400 Elizabeth White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast Florida, LLC., and Americare Home Therapy, Inc., etc. v. Carla Hiles
226 So. 3d 774
Fla.2017Background
- Two consolidated Florida cases: White (Fourth DCA reversed trial court; certified conflict with Tummala) and Hiles (Fifth DCA relied on Tummala; certified conflict with Infinity Home). Both involve former HHC marketing reps who signed non‑competes and then worked for competing home health agencies.
- Home health agencies (HHCs) depend on referrals from identifiable health care providers (physicians, hospitals, case managers); agencies cultivate and maintain databases and relationships through marketing representatives.
- White: employee solicited referrals in two counties for Caretenders, left for a competitor and solicited the same referral sources; trial court granted summary judgment for White based on Tummala, Fourth DCA reversed and certified conflict.
- Hiles: employee copied and removed confidential documents (including a target referral list), left for a competitor and solicited the same referral sources; trial court granted injunction, Fifth DCA reversed under Tummala and certified conflict.
- Central legal question: whether "referral sources" (identifiable health‑care providers who send patient referrals) can qualify as a "legitimate business interest" under Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b), which provides a non‑exhaustive list of protectable interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether referral sources can be a "legitimate business interest" under § 542.335 | White/Hiles: referral sources are not protected because the statute requires "substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing patients," and protecting referral sources would impermissibly protect unidentified prospective patients (relying on Tummala/Sanal). | Caretenders/Americare: referral sources are identifiable, existing healthcare providers with whom the employer cultivates substantial relationships and proprietary information; § 542.335 is non‑exhaustive and does not exclude referral sources. | The Court held referral sources may be a protected legitimate business interest depending on context and proof; quashed Hiles and approved White. |
| Whether § 542.335’s list is exclusive | Plaintiffs: the statutory wording requires particular, identifiable customers/patients, excluding broader categories. | Defendants: the statute says "includes, but is not limited to," so the list is illustrative; expressio unius inapplicable. | The Court held the list is non‑exhaustive and rejected applying expressio unius to exclude referral sources. |
| Remedy and remand | Plaintiffs: prior rulings disposing on law should stand. | Defendants: factual issues remain and must be resolved at trial to determine protectability and appropriate relief (e.g., blue‑penciling). | The Court remanded both cases to district courts for further remand to trial courts to resolve factual determinations and fashion necessary relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. v. Amedisys Holding, LLC, 180 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (held referral sources protectable in home health industry)
- Florida Hematology & Oncology v. Tummala, 927 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (held referring physicians/referral sources not protected under § 542.335)
- University of Fla., Bd. of Trustees v. Sanal, 837 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (rejected protection for unidentified prospective patient base)
- Hapney v. Central Garage, Inc., 579 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (recognized trade secrets, customer goodwill, and specialized training as protectable interests)
- Colucci v. Kar Kare Auto. Grp., Inc., 918 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (noting § 542.335 provides nonexclusive list of legitimate business interests)