Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Physician Noncompete topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates physician noncompete bill; sponsor withdraws bill for further work
Summary
SB139, to declare physician noncompete clauses unenforceable, drew extended committee debate over case law and retroactivity; sponsor later withdrew the bill to pursue referrals and possible amendment rather than asking the committee to vote.
Senate Bill 139, which would make physician noncompete agreements unenforceable in employment contracts, prompted extended floor discussion and legal questions before the sponsor elected to withdraw the bill for further work.
Sponsor Justin Boyd said the bill aims to clarify that noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts are unenforceable, citing three Arkansas cases he reviewed that found physician noncompetes problematic. “What this does is it makes clear for physicians in Arkansas that a non compete clause is unenforceable,” Boyd told the committee.
Several senators questioned whether the measure should apply only prospectively and whether it should be considered in the judiciary committee, where case law and retroactivity concerns can be more thoroughly examined. Senator Payton and others argued physicians are capable of negotiating contracts and that sale‑ancillary covenants (for example, a covenant not to compete tied to a business sale) are typically enforceable; the sponsor said the bill would not apply to covenants ancillary to a sale or franchise (section h(1)).
Attorney Mike Mitchell, who reviewed physician employment agreements, told the committee he had not seen separate, explicit payments made solely for a noncompete in physician employment contracts and said physicians often face litigation costs to challenge a clause.
After discussion, Senator Penzow moved to refer the bill to the judiciary committee; the motion was seconded on the floor. The transcript records the motion and second but does not record a completed committee vote on a referral. Sponsor Boyd then said he would “pull it down” and seek procedural guidance about referring the bill and answering additional questions before returning it to committee.
Because the sponsor withdrew the bill from consideration at the hearing rather than seeking a committee vote to adopt the referral or the measure, no final committee action on SB139 is recorded in the transcript.
