Opinion ID: 2601652
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Ingrim Breached Section 13(a) Is a Question of Fact.

Text: Ingrim's employment at ANMC clearly constitutes the practice of dentistry as that term is defined above. Ingrim sees numerous individual patients, performing their dental examinations, reviewing their x-rays, drilling and filling their cavities, and pulling teeth on occasion. Moreover, Ingrim has admitted during this litigation that he is practicing dentistry at ANMC. In his affidavit submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment, Ingrim stated: I admit that I am practicing dentistry and I admit the Alaska Native Medical Center is located within a fifteen air mile radius of the Turnagain Dental Office. Similarly, in his answer, Ingrim admitted that he began working at the Alaska Native Medical Center engaging in the practice of dentistry. [14] Thus, Ingrim's employment falls within the category of activity prohibited by the covenant not to compete. But this does not resolve the question before us: whether Ingrim's employment violates Section 13(a). As we discussed earlier, Section 13(a) is properly interpreted as prohibiting the practice of dentistry in competition with Turnagain Dental Clinic, thereby protecting Wenzell's legitimate interest in the goodwill he acquired. In the typical case, where a party seeks to enforce a covenant not to compete against a person who opens a for-profit practice or accepts private employment, a court need not inquire into the presence of competition; it can be presumed. A plaintiff can prove a breach of the covenant by showing that the challenged conduct falls within the category of prohibited activity and occurred within the geographic scope and duration of the covenant. This case, however, presents a rare instance where a party is attempting to enforce a covenant not to compete against a person employed by a federally-funded non-profit organization that provides free or low-cost health care services. In such a case, competition will not be presumed and must be proven. We therefore remand this case to the superior court to consider whether Ingrim's practice of dentistry at ANMC is in competition with Turnagain Dental Clinic and thus violates Section 13(a). This question cannot be answered based on the record before us, and may need to be presented to a jury to resolve factual disputes. [15] In considering whether there is competition, the superior court should examine whether Ingrim's employment at ANMC has the realistic potential to draw business away from Turnagain Dental Clinic, reduce the number of referrals it receives, or otherwise harm Turnagain Dental Clinic and the goodwill Wenzell purchased.