*1 proceeding. juvenile resolved court by ruling erred Finally,
4. Pamela contends the trial court order of support for child until further obligation John has no further agree. the court. We support pay that John child divorce decree ordered September per child. In its order of per
amount of
month
$200
no
trial court ruled there would be
contempt proceeding
We have held a
obligation
support
for
until further court order.
child
modify
and decree of
authority
judgment
trial court has no
a final
(306
Eilender,
v.
5. motion to dismiss the is denied. Judgment reversed and remanded consideration in for further light concur. opinion. this All the Justices 9, 1988. Blount, appellant.
Ernest D. Mather, appellee. Susan A. R. Chiapetta, John ASSOCIATES 45583. SHANKMAN v. COASTAL PSYCHIATRIC et al.
45666. COASTAL ASSOCIATES v. SHANKMAN PSYCHIATRIC 753) SE2d
Per curiam.
Judgments opinion pursuant affirmed without to Rule concur, Smith, J., All the as to Justices who dissents Case No. 45583. Justice, dissenting.
Smith, compete employ- This in an case involves a covenant not to used Shankman, appel- appellant, ment contract Dr. and the between lee, Dr. Psychiatric Upon Associates. to en- employment, appellee sought injunction Shankman’s force the terms of the covenant. The trial court found the covenant result, be Dr. Shankman granted injunction. reasonable and As psy- required was to transfer several to the care of another chiatrist. employer, practitioner and medical
Contracts between a medical hospital, strong policy of the light “must be examined to protect
the state regulate health of its citizens and to those Emory University professionals it licenses.” I would hold restrictive covenants in a illegal per medical contract as against strong public policy se irrespective my opinion, whether the covenant is reasonable.1 this result is light demanded in profession’s special the medical *2 relationship public with the it serves and this State’s constitutional prohibition against contracts in restraint of trade.
The Code of Responsibility Professional attorneys provides:
A lawyer shall not be party participate a to or a partner- or ship employment agreement lawyer with another that re- right stricts lawyer practice the of a to after the law termina- of tion a relationship by created agreement, the as a payment condition to of retirement benefits. (A),
DR 2-108
The prohibits such agreements they because limit a client’s freedom to choose the possible legal representa- best Comment, tion. 5.6(A). ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Likewise, patients medical not seeking should be forbidden from the best medical treatment of simply from the doctor their choice of an agreement party.2 opinions with third of the counsel on Ethical and Judicial Association, Affairs of the American Medical 1986 9.02 states: §
Agreements restricting practice the of medicine. The counsel on ethical and judicial any agreement affairs discourages be- physicians tween right physician restricts the of a to practice specified period medicine for a in a speci- of time or fied area on of employment partnership or or agreements Such restrictive corporate agreement. are not in public the interest. [Emphasis supplied.] public It is in the patient interest for the right medical to have the 1 states, Delaware, making Two Colorado and have statutes restrictive covenants be physicians illegal per (3) 1982); tween (Supp. se. Colo. Rev. Stat. Del. § 8-2-113 6 C. 2707 § part public policy monopolies suppress encourage “It is a of of this State to and to competition, person, firm, right any corporation and to this end restrictions on the of public engage and do in its business with those who members choose to business partake Const., its services are not Ill, VI, V; Ga. Par. OCGA [1983 favored. Co., Troup County (Emphasis supplied.) EMC v. Ga. Power 13-8-2.]” 229 Ga. available. medical treatment the best doctor and choose profession, legal profession, is one that like The medical (clients) patients necessity of its and confidence must the faith have (client) patient give en- When a has effective treatment. order to (lawyer) this creates a the doctor information to trusted confidential (client) patient relationship not wish to does confidence involuntarily especially relationship terminated. This is that have true psychiatry and mental which deals with emotional field of App. Mitchell, Ins. Co. v. 164 Ga. St. Paul Fire &c. illness. SE2d 126) (1982) (discussing emotional reaction of analyst). that must be It is unfortunate toward the they told by agreement longer their because of an can no be treated doctor happens party. Yet, this is what Court with a allows third “ gov- ‘[R]ules instead of healers. doctors to become businessmen relevancy dealing place are little ern tradesmen in the market experts prac- [physicians] out as and whose with who hold themselves by ” Emory University regulated tice is the state.’ at 394. Bishop Catlin, Catlin, & R. Peter Shankman *3 Dickey, Jennings, Bush, Jr., Post, Nan H. Hansell & Walter H. Psy- Whelchel, Readdick, Whelchel, Thomas Brown & J. chiatric Associates et al. ARNALL;
45594, vice versa. HICKS Presiding Justice. Clarke, County levy question validity appeals tax of Houston These purposes amendment for imposes cap and a local constitutional educational millage. on the authorized County In the voters of Houston ratified amendment limiting millage rate for Constitution educational County. purposes VII, I, Par. II of Constitu- Houston Georgia, tion of as 1982. The amendment contains amended also 1(3) (D), levy higher exception, cap than the section which authorizes necessary comply with future federal and state statutes funding. for which there is no state or federal purposes millage for educational Houston rate according County cap under the tax exceeded that allowed (OCGA Quality Education, Act the Board of Basic Education taxpayers seq.) Hicks and other 20-2-130 et mandated this excess.