Beck v. Pickert Medical Group P.C., et al.
Nevada District Court
Case No. CV21-02092 (2022)

- Written by Kate Douglas, JD
Facts
Pickert Medical Group, P.C. (Pickert) (defendant) employed approximately two-thirds of the anesthesiologists in northern Nevada. All Pickert anesthesiologists signed employment agreements that contained noncompete clauses barring them, for a period of two years after termination of their employment, from working within 25 miles of Renown Regional Medical Center (Renown) or at any other location where they had performed services two years prior to termination. Some of the noncompetes stated that the employees posed a competitive threat to Pickert because of their specialized skills. The employment agreements also contained confidentiality clauses and clauses prohibiting employees from soliciting Pickert’s patients and customers for two years after termination. Pickert and Renown, which was the region’s only trauma center, entered into a professional-services agreement (PSA) pursuant to which Pickert became Renown’s sole and exclusive provider of anesthesiology services. Renown later terminated the PSA. Pickert anesthesiologists, including Samuel Beck (collectively, employees) (plaintiffs), sued Pickert in Nevada state court, arguing that the noncompetes were void and unenforceable under state law. Concerned that the clauses might also violate federal antitrust law, the United States Department of Justice submitted an interest statement to the trial court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.