Court Opinion

ID: 9704705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:43:49.294131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:04.573346
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LUND, specially concurring: I concur that it was within the discretion of the trial court to deny a temporary injunction. The portion of the decision relating to the unusual nature of the agreement between the parties causes concern. As pointed out in Sarah Bush (238 Ill. App. 3d at 963, 605 N.E.2d at 617), a protected interest is present when there is a near-permanent relationship with the clientele. This relationship status is equally as important to Danville Polyclinic as it was to Sarah Bush. It is not unreasonable to suggest that many of Dr. Dethmer’s patients came to him because of his association with Polyclinic. Perhaps the evidence will show many of those patients were referrals from other physician members of Polyclinic. It does not take much imagination to realize that medical clinics consist of more than a group of doctors. Buildings, equipment, and non-doctor personnel are necessary. Advertising is necessary. In summary, it is safe to suggest substantial capital expenditures are required and substantial administrative expenses are ongoing. These same factors exist in sole proprietorships, like that present in Cockerill. The majority opinion appears to suggest that Danville Polyclinic’s cause of action is without merit. Such a prejudgment (before a full evidentiary hearing) is, in my opinion, erroneous. Perhaps Danville Polyclinic’s expansion and resulting requests for financial assurances did void the restrictive covenant — and perhaps not. I do recognize that moving into new facilities may be necessary and beneficial to physicians and patients. I suggest that what the restrictive covenant protects may well be the financial resources of all those practicing in the clinic. Illinois, as well as most jurisdictions, has long recognized that reasonable restrictive covenants involving medical practitioners will be enforced by equitable relief. (See Linn v. Sigsbee (1873), 67 Ill. 75; Ryan v. Hamilton (1903), 205 Ill. 191, 68 N.E. 781; Storer v. Brock (1933), 351 Ill. 643, 184 N.E. 868; Bauer, 8 Ill. 2d 351, 134 N.E.2d 329; 17 C.J.S. Contracts §§ 245, 246, 247, at 1121, 1122, 1124 (1963).) Some cases discuss "patients” as being the point of interest. We must not let this smoke screen obscure our judgment. Like it or not, it is money that is important. Money pays bills, supports families, and buys luxuries. It also provides business settings and opportunities. Better facilities can attract more customers. The hearing for preliminary injunction was just that — a preliminary hearing. Plaintiff should have the opportunity to proceed to full hearing, unburdened by an appellate opinion suggesting how the trial court should use that court’s discretion.