Non-competition clauses between a physician and an employer are not per se void, and are enforceable if they are found to be reasonable. To be geographically reasonable, the agreement may restrict only that area in which the physician developed patient relationships using the practice group’s resources. Thus, the Indiana Supreme Court has adopted a reasonableness standard for physician non-competition agreements.  So, to be enforceable, a non-competition agreement must be reasonable; unlike reasonableness in many other contexts, the reasonableness of a non-competition agreement is a question of law.  In arguing the reasonableness of a non-competition agreement, the employer must first show that it has a legitimate interest to be protected by the agreement. The employer also bears the burden of establishing that the agreement is reasonable in scope as to the time, activity, and geographic area restricted.

The Court found that prohibiting restrictive covenants in physician employment contracts is a decision better left to the legislature, where the competing interests can be fully argued. Thus, any decision to ban physician non-competition agreements altogether should be left to the legislature.
Central Ind. Podiatry v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2008).