If you’re a physician in Texas facing a non-compete agreement that limits your ability to practice medicine, you may have more legal options than you think. While Texas law allows certain non-competes, recent cases show that physicians can sometimes fight these restrictions using antitrust arguments—especially when patient care and public access to specialized medical services are at stake.
One recent federal court decision involving a radiologist provides a roadmap for how this can work.
Relevant Facts of the Case
Dr. Amy Coleman, a fellowship-trained breast imaging radiologist, worked for Meridian Imaging, P.A. in Meridian, Mississippi. Her employment agreement included a two-year non-compete that prohibited her from providing radiology services within 45 miles of Meridian if she left the practice.
When Dr. Coleman resigned in 2023, she asked to be released from the non-compete. The practice refused, saying they would fully enforce it.
Two local hospitals—Ochsner Rush and Baptist Anderson—expressed interest in hiring her, but both backed away because of the non-compete. That left Dr. Coleman unable to work in the area and forced her to take out-of-state positions.
Believing the restriction hurt not only her career but also patient access to specialized breast cancer screening, Dr. Coleman sued, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Mississippi’s antitrust statute, and state common law.
Dr. Coleman’s Position:
- Antitrust Violation: The non-compete unlawfully restrained trade in violation of the Sherman Act because it removed one of only two breast imaging specialists in the region, reducing the quality and availability of critical cancer-detection services.
- Public Harm: Limiting access to her skills could delay diagnoses and worsen patient outcomes, which harms the public interest.
- State Law Violations: The non-compete also violated Mississippi’s antitrust and common law rules against unreasonable restraints on trade.
- Tortious Interference: By enforcing the non-compete and informing hospitals she was bound by it, the practice intentionally interfered with her ability to find new employment.
Meridian Imaging’s Position:
- No “Conspiracy” Under the Sherman Act: They argued that a business can’t “conspire” with its own employees and that Dr. Coleman hadn’t shown collaboration with a competitor.
- No Harm to Competition: The practice claimed that the area’s breast care needs were still being met and that one doctor’s departure wasn’t enough to show an antitrust violation.
- Lawful Enforcement: They said they were simply enforcing a valid employment contract and were within their rights to tell potential employers about the non-compete.
The Court’s Ruling
Meridian sought to dismiss the case, but the federal judge denied the dismissal via summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial. Here’s why:
- Non-Competes Can Be Reviewed Under Antitrust Law
The court confirmed that an agreement between an employer and employee can violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act if it unreasonably restrains trade, including in the labor market for physicians. - Evidence of Harm to Competition
Dr. Coleman provided testimony from local surgeons and oncologists showing:- She was one of only two highly specialized breast imaging radiologists in the area.
- Since she left, patients faced delays in care.
- The only other specialist had stopped taking new patients years earlier.
This raised factual questions about whether the non-compete reduced the quality and availability of medical services, which is central to antitrust analysis.
- Standing to Sue
The court held that physicians can have “antitrust standing” when a non-compete restrains competition in the market for their services, even if patients are also harmed. - Public Interest Matters
Under both Mississippi common law and federal antitrust principles, courts must consider whether enforcing a non-compete harms the public, especially in healthcare. - Tortious Interference Claim Survives
Because the validity of the non-compete was still in question, the court allowed Dr. Coleman’s claim that the employer wrongfully interfered with her job prospects to move forward.
What This Means for Texas Physicians
While this case arose in Mississippi, Texas physicians can take important lessons from it:
- Antitrust arguments are viable when a non-compete meaningfully reduces patient access to essential medical services—especially in underserved areas or where specialized skills are rare.
- Evidence from other doctors in the community about patient delays, reduced care quality, or inability to access certain procedures can be critical.
- Public interest is a factor under Texas law too. Texas courts also weigh whether enforcing a non-compete harms patients or the healthcare system.
- Hospital hiring decisions can be influenced by non-competes, even if they’re not directly enforcing them—showing a real-world impact on the labor market.
- You don’t have to wait for trial to raise these arguments; they can be used to defeat early motions by the employer.
Key Takeaways
- Non-competes aren’t automatically enforceable—even in states like Texas where they are generally allowed—if they unreasonably restrain trade or harm public access to medical services.
- Antitrust law can be a powerful tool for physicians, particularly in rural or specialty-dependent markets.
- Document the impact on patient care—this can turn a private contract dispute into a broader public-interest issue.
- Consult an attorney experienced in physician non-competes to explore both state and federal defenses.
Facing a Non-Compete as a Physician in Texas?
Our firm represents physicians across Texas in challenging unfair and overly restrictive non-compete agreements. If your ability to serve patients and maintain your career is being limited, you may have legal defenses under Texas contract law, Texas Business & Commerce Code, and federal antitrust statutes.
📞 Call us today for a confidential consultation to discuss your options and protect both your practice and your patients.
Leiza Dolghih is the founder of Dolghih Law Group PLLC. She is board certified in labor and employment law and has 16+ years of experience in commercial and employment litigation, including trade secrets and non-compete disputes. You can contact her directly at leiza@dlg-legal.com or (214) 531-2403.