## Facts

- Pickert Medical Group, P.C. (Pickert) employed approximately two-thirds of the anesthesiologists in northern Nevada.
- Pickert anesthesiologists signed employment agreements containing post-employment restrictive covenants, including:
  - A noncompete barring the anesthesiologist, for two years after termination, from working within 25 miles of Renown Regional Medical Center (Renown) and from working at any other location where the anesthesiologist had performed services during the two years before termination.
  - Confidentiality provisions.
  - A two-year non-solicitation restriction as to Pickert’s patients and customers.
- Some noncompete provisions recited that the anesthesiologists posed a competitive threat to Pickert due to specialized skills.
- Pickert and Renown—described as the region’s only trauma center and a major provider of complex surgical care—entered into a professional-services agreement (PSA) making Pickert Renown’s sole and exclusive provider of anesthesiology services.
- Renown later terminated the PSA.
- Pickert anesthesiologists, including Samuel Beck (collectively, the employees), sued Pickert in Nevada state court, seeking a declaration that the restrictive covenants were void and unenforceable under Nevada law.
- The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division filed a Statement of Interest in the state-court case, explaining that the restraints could raise issues under federal antitrust law and that antitrust analysis could assist the court in evaluating enforceability under Nevada law.
- Publicly available sources do not reflect a published judicial opinion resolving the merits of the enforceability dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether the two-year, 25-mile (and location-based) noncompete, together with related confidentiality and non-solicitation restrictions, were void or unenforceable under Nevada law governing restrictive covenants.
2. Whether, in deciding a state-law challenge to employee noncompetes in a concentrated labor market, the court may consider how similar restraints are analyzed under Sherman Act § 1.
3. Whether the noncompetes, given Pickert’s alleged share of anesthesiologists and its exclusive arrangement with Renown, could operate as unreasonable restraints of trade in labor and services markets under federal antitrust principles (including possible per se treatment in limited settings).

## Decision

- No publicly available written decision or reporter-cited opinion has been identified that resolves whether the Nevada state court enforced, narrowed, or invalidated the restrictive covenants.
- The DOJ filed a Statement of Interest stating that it was not taking a position on the ultimate merits of the employees’ Nevada-law claims, but contending that the noncompetes “raise concerns” under Sherman Act § 1 and that antitrust analysis may inform the state-law enforceability inquiry.
- The DOJ’s filing discussed how post-employment restraints can be analyzed as restraints of trade in labor markets and, depending on their character and function, may be evaluated under per se rules, the rule of reason, or a truncated (“quick look”) approach.

## Legal Principles

- Post-employment noncompete agreements can constitute “restraints of trade” within the reach of Sherman Act § 1 when they restrict competition in labor markets (such as the market for specialized physicians) and may also affect downstream services markets.
- A restraint labeled “employment-related” may still have competitive effects similar to agreements that allocate workers or limit rivalry; antitrust characterization can depend on how the restraint operates in practice.
- Antitrust analysis distinguishes “naked” restraints (those not tied to a legitimate, procompetitive collaboration) from “ancillary” restraints (those plausibly connected to a lawful arrangement); naked market-allocation restraints are commonly associated with per se treatment, while ancillary restraints are generally evaluated under the rule of reason.
- Market structure matters: a noncompete imposed by an employer that controls a large share of a specialized workforce, especially alongside exclusivity at a key facility, may more strongly limit worker mobility and competition for services.
- Even where a state-law framework supplies the enforceability test for restrictive covenants, a court may consider federal antitrust concepts when assessing whether a restraint is unreasonable in scope or effect.

## Conclusion

Beck v. Pickert Medical Group P.C., et al. is a Nevada state-court dispute in which anesthesiologists challenged two-year, 25-mile (and location-based) noncompete restrictions and related covenants in employment agreements with a dominant regional anesthesiology group that held an exclusive service arrangement with the area’s only trauma center. The case is publicly notable less for a reported merits ruling (none is publicly available) than for the DOJ Antitrust Division’s Statement of Interest, which argued that such restraints can implicate Sherman Act § 1 and that antitrust reasoning may help a court evaluate whether the noncompetes are void or unenforceable under Nevada law.


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