Four nurse anesthetists thought a $30,000 clause was a buyout – their new employer agreed to pay it
A Texas appeals court has upheld a non-compete injunction against four nurse anesthetists whose new employer promised to cover all legal fallout.
The decision, handed down on April 16, 2026, by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont, affirmed a temporary injunction barring four Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists from practicing within a 20-mile radius of their former workplaces for three years. The case offers a pointed reminder for HR professionals about how non-compete agreements hold up in court – and what happens when a competitor tries to work around them.
The dispute began when Anesthesia Associates, a professional association of physicians and healthcare providers based in Beaumont, Texas, terminated its anesthesia services contract with CHRISTUS Health Southeast Texas after the two sides failed to renegotiate terms. The termination took effect on August 1, 2025. That same day, four of the group's CRNAs – Chad Dubois, Kenneth Simmons III, Monica Bentzen, and Lance Mendoza – started working at CHRISTUS facilities in Beaumont for a competitor called EmergencHealth.
Each of the four had signed employment agreements with Anesthesia Associates that included a three-year non-compete clause covering a 20-mile radius, a $30,000 liquidated damages provision, and language acknowledging that any breach would cause irreparable harm. Each was aware of those terms when they left.
What made this case unusual was the role of the new employer. Testimony at the hearings revealed that EmergencHealth had told each of the CRNAs it would take care of their non-compete obligations. The company entered into separate written agreements with all four, promising to pay their legal fees, damages, and expenses if Anesthesia Associates sued. The CRNAs' new contracts with EmergencHealth contained their own non-compete clauses – but those restricted them from competing only within a one-mile radius, a fraction of the original restriction.
Several of the CRNAs testified they believed the $30,000 liquidated damages clause in their Anesthesia Associates agreements was essentially a buyout – a one-time payment that would free them from the non-compete entirely. The court disagreed. The employment agreements made clear that the liquidated damages existed alongside the employer's right to seek injunctive relief, not as a substitute for it. The word buyout appeared nowhere in the contracts.
The case also played out against a staffing crisis. A CHRISTUS hospital administrator testified that without the four defendants, the hospital's daily CRNA coverage dropped from a target of 16 to as few as eight. Surgeries were delayed. Elective procedures were deferred. The hospital began underscheduling operations to avoid recording formal cancellations. Credentialing barriers made it nearly impossible to bring in replacement CRNAs on short notice, with the process usually taking 60 to 90 days.
On the employer's side, the president of Anesthesia Associates testified that the departures left the group with just seven nurse anesthetists, down from 15 or 16. Those workers had been independent contractors operating under the Anesthesia Associates umbrella, not traditional employees. To attract replacements in a market with no local CRNA training program, the group had raised starting pay to $367,550 and offered signing bonuses as high as $150,000. He described the damage in terms of lost goodwill, rising costs, and the erosion of a group that had been operating since 1952.
The trial court found the non-compete clauses valid and enforceable, with reasonable limits on time, geography, and scope. It found that the employer had shown a probable right to permanent relief and that damages alone would not be an adequate remedy. The appellate court affirmed, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and noting a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm when highly trained employees engage in ongoing non-compete violations.
The court also noted that the defendants had failed to preserve one of their key arguments on appeal – that the injunction was improper because they were working for a different employer at the same client location – because they had not raised it at trial.
The case now heads to a full trial on the merits, set for June 8, 2026.
For HR teams, the takeaways are practical. Liquidated damages clauses do not function as buyouts unless the contract says so. A competitor's promise to absorb the consequences of a non-compete breach does not neutralize the restriction. And courts in Texas continue to enforce non-compete agreements against highly trained professionals, even when the former employer has moved on from the client relationship at the center of the dispute.
The case is Dubois v. Anesthesia Associates, No. 09-25-00345-CV (Tex. App.-Beaumont Apr. 16, 2026).
