EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISES EXERCISE 1 Dr. Larson grew up in a small town in North Carolina. He was intelligent and did well in col- lege and medical school. After a fellowship in thoracic surgery, he was offered positions with good employment terms and conditions in various reputable medical practices throughout the United States. be Feeling a duty to his hometown, Dr. Larson decided to return to his community to practice medicine. He was offered and accepted employment with a multispecialty group practice. The practice paid his expenses to relocate to his hometown and required him to sign an employment agreement that contained a noncompetition provision. Because of his trusting nature, Dr. Larson did not seek an attorney's advice before signing the agreement. After several years of working at this practice, Dr. Larson fell in love with a patient who resided in another small town about 30 miles away. After this patient's recovery, Dr. Larson proposed marriage and agreed to move and work in his fiance's hometown. He opened a private practice in this town. After giving notice to his employer, Dr. Larson received a stern letter from the em- ployer's counsel reminding him of his employment agreement. The agreement's noncompe- tition provision prevented him from working as a thoracic surgeon within a 60-mile radius of his current employer for one year after leaving employment. Given the rural nature of Fundamentals of Human Resources in Healthcare the community, Dr. Larson was the only thoracic surgeon within a 90-mile radius of either practice. He would have to move to the big city to practice medicine, leaving all the residents of his hometown and those of his new wife's town without a practicing thoracic surgeon. Discuss the following issues of Dr. Larson's case: Given that such agreements restrict competition, under what circumstances should a court enforce a covenant not to compete? In general, courts will enforce a covenant not to compete if it is (1) in writing, (2) en- tered into at the time of employment as part of the employment contract, (3) based on reasonable consideration, (4) reasonable with respect to time and territory, and (5) not against public policy. Using this as a guide, how should the court decide in this case? For additional information, see Iredell Digestive Disease Clinic, P.A., v. Petrozza, 92 N.C. App. 21, 373 S.E.2d 449 (1988), aff'd per curiam, 324 N.C. 327, 377 S.E.2d 750 (1989)