A Georgia court recently ruled against Atlanta Women’s Health Group, P.C. (AWHG) and Peachtree Women’s Clinic, LLC (PWC) in their attempt to enforce non-compete agreements against ten physicians who resigned from their practice. The ruling, issued by the Court of Appeals of Georgia on October 15, 2026, denied the request for an interlocutory injunction that would have prevented the physicians from providing medical services within a specified area. This decision affects both the medical practice and the patients who rely on these physicians for care.
The dispute began when the ten physicians, including Dr. Kawami Clay and Dr. Stephanie Grogan, announced their intention to leave PWC and start a new practice at Northside Hospital. They sent a letter claiming that the non-compete agreements were unenforceable, leading PWC and AWHG to seek an injunction to prevent them from practicing in the same area. The trial court denied the injunction, stating that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate they would suffer irreparable harm and that the public interest favored patient care continuity.
PWC and AWHG are medical entities that provide obstetrical and gynecological services. The ten physicians were previously employed by PWC and were also shareholders in AWHG. Their employment agreements contained restrictive covenants that prohibited them from competing within a five-mile radius of PWC’s offices for two years after leaving the practice. The physicians resigned in November 2025, effective February 19, 2026, and announced their plans to set up a new practice just days later.
The case reached the Court of Appeals after the trial court denied the request for an injunction on February 11, 2026. The trial court found that PWC and AWHG had not shown they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted. The court emphasized that the economic harm claimed by the plaintiffs was quantifiable and did not meet the standard for irreparable injury.
The court ruled that an interlocutory injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted cautiously. The trial court’s decision was based on several factors, including the lack of evidence that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm and the public interest in ensuring continuity of care for patients, especially those with high-risk conditions. The court stated, "The public interest in ensuring the continuity of time-sensitive care for these patients vastly outweighs AWHG’s desire to preserve its management fee."
The ruling was made by Judges McFadden, Watkins, and Padgett, who concurred with the decision. They noted that the trial court had broad discretion in determining whether to grant the injunction and found no abuse of that discretion in this case. The court also highlighted that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their case.
This decision has significant implications for PWC and AWHG, as they will now face competition from the departing physicians who plan to operate within the restricted area. The ruling clarifies that the enforcement of non-compete agreements is not guaranteed and that the courts will weigh the interests of both the parties involved and the public when making such decisions.
Moving forward, PWC and AWHG may consider their options for further legal action, including the possibility of appealing the ruling. However, the court’s decision underscores the challenges that medical practices face when attempting to enforce restrictive covenants against departing employees. The case also highlights the importance of patient care and continuity, particularly in the context of high-risk medical situations.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether PWC and AWHG plan to appeal the decision or if there are related cases pending. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for similar disputes involving non-compete agreements in the medical field, particularly in Georgia.