Noncompete agreements are becoming flashpoints in courtrooms across the country. From state attorney general investigations to multimillion-dollar payment disputes and 90-mile practice bans, recent lawsuits show how restrictive covenants can shape where physicians work, how health systems compete and who ultimately has access to care.
Here are five recent noncompete cases that signal how the legal landscape is shifting, and what that means for physicians navigating employment contracts in 2026:
1. Minnesota investigation tests reach of state noncompete ban: The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office opened an investigation into Wausau, Wis.-based Aspirus Health after several Duluth, Minn.-based physicians filed antitrust complaints over amended employment contracts issued following Aspirus’ 2024 merger with Duluth-based St. Luke’s.
The physicians allege they were given an ultimatum to sign new contracts that changed pay and scheduling expectations while retaining noncompete clauses restricting practice within 10 to 25 miles for up to two years. Aspirus maintains the amendments did not change noncompete terms and that the agreements remain lawful.
Because Minnesota’s 2023 noncompete ban is not retroactive, the case could clarify how far the new law protects physicians when contracts are amended post-merger.
2. NAPA settlement spotlights noncompetes in group contracts: North American Partners in Anesthesia reached an undisclosed settlement with Trinity Health affiliates St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Holy Cross Hospital, which sued the anesthesia provider in early 2025.
In their complaint, the hospitals alleged NAPA used noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses to “severely restrict competition” and demand “exorbitant” payments, including a claimed multi-million-dollar payment to waive noncompetes.
Although settlement details were not disclosed, the case underscores how noncompete disputes can extend beyond individual physicians to shape hospital-physician contracting dynamics.
3. Idaho trauma surgeon challenges 90-mile noncompete: Parker Fillmore, MD, a former trauma medical director at Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Boise, Idaho, sued the hospital for wrongful termination and enforcement of a noncompete clause.
After his termination, Dr. Fillmore began working at West Valley Medical Center in Caldwell, Idaho, prompting a cease-and-desist letter citing a clause that bars him from providing trauma care within 90 miles for 18 months.
He argued the agreement is harmful, was never intended to be enforced and limits access to trauma care in the region. The case highlights how broad geographic restrictions can affect physician mobility and local specialty coverage.
4. Kansas physicians settle dispute over 110-mile noncompete: Surgeon Jerod Grove, MD, and oncologist Robert Rodriguez, MD, reached a resolution with Hays, Kan.-based HaysMed after mediation.
In separate filings, the physicians sued over a two-year noncompete clause extending 110 miles around Hays and 30 miles from outreach sites. They sought to prevent enforcement of the covenant, citing the limited number of specialists in Western Kansas. After Dr. Grove left HaysMed and signed with Greeley Health to work at Tribune (Kan.) Medical Center, HaysMed enforced the noncompete, barring him from practicing in the region.
The dispute underscores how noncompetes can become leverage points when physicians change employers, particularly in smaller markets, and how enforcement actions may escalate quickly into litigation and counterclaims.
5. Former Yale New Haven COO sues over noncompete payments: Michael Holmes, former COO of Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, on Nov. 5 sued the system, alleging it breached his confidentiality and noncompete agreement by refusing to make post-employment covenant payments.
Holmes resigned in January 2025 and took a role more than 1,000 miles away, which he says complied with a 120-mile restriction and other noncompete terms. The hospital declined to pay the first $248,500 installment, part of nearly $1 million in anticipated payments, citing a separate employment agreement. Yale New Haven Health has denied the allegations and said it will defend the case.
The dispute underscores how noncompete litigation can center on compensation obligations as much as geographic limits.
