As an attorney focused on healthcare law, I’ve had the privilege of assisting numerous doctors in crafting and negotiating employment agreements that lay the foundation for successful professional relationships with associates. In the dynamic world of dentistry, these agreements serve as vital instruments in delineating the rights, responsibilities, and expectations of both employers and employees.
Employment agreements for general dentists should be meticulously drafted to address key aspects such as compensation (daily rates? percentage compensation? collections or production?), benefits, working hours, and professional obligations. Clarity and specificity from the outset are paramount to avoid ambiguity and potential disputes down the line. Whether it’s delineating a competitive salary structure, outlining comprehensive benefits packages, or establishing clear performance metrics, a well-crafted agreement sets the stage for a mutually beneficial partnership between dental associates and their employer practice.
Furthermore, these agreements often encompass provisions related to non-compete and non-solicitation clauses, patient confidentiality, record-keeping, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Associates must carefully review these clauses to ensure they understand their implications fully–sometimes thinking about years down the road. Likewise, employing dentists must ensure that these provisions are reasonable and enforceable within the confines of applicable law.
In Florida, there is a state statute that sets the parameters of what is reasonable for restrictive covenants (non-competition agreements) in the context of dentistry. Specifically, Florida Statutes Sec. 542.335 deals with the protection of confidential information as well as trade secrets and the reasonableness of non-compete restrictions among dentists. Under subpart 1(d), a restrictive covenant against an associate dentist–a former employee or contractor, not an owner–is presumed “reasonable” in duration if the applicable time period is less than 6 months and presumed “unreasonable” if it is more than 2 years. On the other hand, under subpart (3), a restrictive covenant against a departing owner dentist–a seller or partner who is leaving–is presumably “reasonable” if it lasts less than 3 years and “unreasonable” if it is more than 7 years. These specific statutory concerns must be addressed correct to be sure the holder of the restrictive covenant can actually enforce it and for the certainty of the doctor under the restrictions.
By engaging in transparent communication and seeking legal guidance when necessary, both parties can enter into employment agreements with confidence, paving the way for a prosperous and harmonious professional journey in dentistry going forward.