Mediation vs. Arbitration in Restrictive Medical Covenants

Mediation vs. arbitration is a decision that those interested in alternative dispute resolution may face.  Both methods can help physicians who prefer not to work under contracts that require restrictive covenants.  These clauses are becoming increasingly common in contracts between physicians and groups that employ them.  They restrict the physician from practicing medicine for parties other than the employer.  This severely limits the freedom of the physician to acquire extra work during times such as weekends and holiday periods. 

The American Medical Association's Council of Ethical and Judicial Affairs has determined that restrictive covenants “disrupt continuity of care, and potentially deprive the public of medical services,” but deems then unethical only when they are “excessive in geographic scope or duration … or if they fail to make reasonable accommodation of patients’ choice of physician.”

Nevertheless, such covenants are coming under increasing scrutiny, with some states invalidating them on a case by case basis while at least three have passed legislation banning them. 

Mediation vs. Arbitration Choices

Physicians who wish to alter the terms of their contracts will find litigation an inefficient mechanism.  Far better is to begin with mediation, and if applicable, attempt workplace mediation, which may be binding or non-binding depending on the terms of the contract.