Wigton v. Univ. of Cincinnati Physicians, Inc.
2021 Ohio 3576
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Dr. Michael Wigton (hand surgeon) contracted with University of Cincinnati Physicians, Inc. (UCP) in 2016 under an employment agreement that included a noncompete: prohibited practicing his specialty within 10 miles of any site he worked in the prior 12 months, for 18 months after employment ended.
- After four years with UCP, Wigton resigned and accepted employment with Beacon Orthopedics and sought a declaratory judgment about the noncompete a few months before starting at Beacon.
- Wigton filed for declaratory relief and moved for summary judgment; he did not file a motion for preliminary or permanent injunctive relief. UCP filed a cross-motion for summary judgment but analyzed the dispute under the preliminary-injunction standard.
- The trial court evaluated the cross-motions under the preliminary-injunction/clear-and-convincing standard, granted UCP’s motion, and denied Wigton’s, concluding (inter alia) UCP had a legitimate interest based on nonprofit status and training investment.
- The record was undisputed that Wigton did not attempt to redirect patients and did not possess confidential UCP trade secrets; the appellate court reversed because the trial court applied the wrong standard and remanded for proceedings under the ordinary summary-judgment standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for resolving cross-motions for summary judgment on a declaratory judgment in a noncompete case | Summary-judgment standard governs; Civ.R. 56 allows summary judgment on declaratory claims | Preliminary-injunction standard (clear and convincing) applies because noncompete cases often involve injunctive relief | Court held summary-judgment standard applies; trial court erred by imposing clear-and-convincing burden |
| Enforceability of the noncompete absent evidence of trade secrets or solicitation | Wigton: noncompete is unreasonable because no protected business interest (no trade secrets, no patient-stealing) | UCP: nonprofit academic hospital status and investment in physician training constitute legitimate business interests | Court did not decide on the merits; remanded for Raimonde analysis under summary-judgment standard |
| Whether the trial court failed to construe evidence in favor of the nonmoving party | Wigton: trial court did not construe facts most strongly in his favor when evaluating cross-motions | UCP: evidence supported grant of relief | Court sustained Wigton’s assignment on this point and directed that the summary-judgment standard be applied (construe evidence for the opposing party) |
| Request to modify the noncompete | Wigton asked for modification | UCP opposed modification | Held moot on appeal and for remand—trial court to reconsider under correct standard |
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 (Ohio App.) (party seeking injunctive relief ordinarily must prove elements by clear and convincing evidence)
- Brentlinger Ents. v. Curran, 141 Ohio App.3d 640, 752 N.E.2d 994 (Ohio App.) (noncompete enforcement generally tied to protection of trade secrets or proprietary customer information)
- Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 309 N.E.2d 924 (Ohio 1974) (cross-motions for summary judgment must be considered separately; evidence construed for the nonmovant)
- Stover v. State Farm Ins. Co., 127 Ohio App.3d 590, 713 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio App.) (summary judgment is an appropriate vehicle to resolve declaratory-judgment actions)
- State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz, 162 Ohio St.3d 400, 165 N.E.3d 1167 (Ohio 2020) (statement of the summary-judgment standard)