rssb
11-28 07:28 AM
H1's from A and B are not related and having multiple H1's is valid.
However in your case, once the H1 from company A starts your OPT / EAD status will no longer be valid. For filing a H1 with company B now, you are fine with OPT status and you may get an approval for start date B with company B based on today's status of OPT.
I am under the impression that company B is not aware of H1 filing with company A.
So if H1 from company A is already approved and ready to start date A in Jan , then that is the day your OPT will end. If H1 from B is approved before start date A , but start date B is beyond A's start date then you will have to be with company A during that period ( i.e gap between start date A & start date B).
Or else down the line if you are asked to prove status between start date A & B, for that time you need something to show.
You say "My issue is, Company A is going to terminate the H1B visa process from my end, and ends the employment relation with me. "
If this is the case your OPT should be intact, just make sure your status does not change on start date A with Sevis.
If A is not willing to cancel or you need to ask them to cancel then ....
Your options might be,
a) Cancel processing of H1 with A, so that OPT stays intact till B kicks in.
b) if A is already approved, then ask A to cancel it ( i.e send a letter to USCIS for withdrawal), this withdrawal date has to be before start date with A , and your OPT will be reinstated till B kicks in. This requires around 60 days, but can be sooner depending on their work load.
c) Ask B to advance start date to match with A so it takes control of your OPT before A ends it.
I can understand your situation, when someone is coming out of school and has multiple options. Where a single one of them is not a cut above the rest, for a clean decision, or a good one comes later. The best is to stay with opt until you are comfortable and like the work, but however due to time pressure, quota exhaustion and persuasion from the companies people end up applying for H1 too soon locking themselves into a corner.
PS: I am not a lawyer, it is better to consult a lawyer / your school student adviser for your options.
Good luck.
However in your case, once the H1 from company A starts your OPT / EAD status will no longer be valid. For filing a H1 with company B now, you are fine with OPT status and you may get an approval for start date B with company B based on today's status of OPT.
I am under the impression that company B is not aware of H1 filing with company A.
So if H1 from company A is already approved and ready to start date A in Jan , then that is the day your OPT will end. If H1 from B is approved before start date A , but start date B is beyond A's start date then you will have to be with company A during that period ( i.e gap between start date A & start date B).
Or else down the line if you are asked to prove status between start date A & B, for that time you need something to show.
You say "My issue is, Company A is going to terminate the H1B visa process from my end, and ends the employment relation with me. "
If this is the case your OPT should be intact, just make sure your status does not change on start date A with Sevis.
If A is not willing to cancel or you need to ask them to cancel then ....
Your options might be,
a) Cancel processing of H1 with A, so that OPT stays intact till B kicks in.
b) if A is already approved, then ask A to cancel it ( i.e send a letter to USCIS for withdrawal), this withdrawal date has to be before start date with A , and your OPT will be reinstated till B kicks in. This requires around 60 days, but can be sooner depending on their work load.
c) Ask B to advance start date to match with A so it takes control of your OPT before A ends it.
I can understand your situation, when someone is coming out of school and has multiple options. Where a single one of them is not a cut above the rest, for a clean decision, or a good one comes later. The best is to stay with opt until you are comfortable and like the work, but however due to time pressure, quota exhaustion and persuasion from the companies people end up applying for H1 too soon locking themselves into a corner.
PS: I am not a lawyer, it is better to consult a lawyer / your school student adviser for your options.
Good luck.
wallpaper HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI: Two
raju123
06-18 01:05 PM
Ask for the copies and doctor will give copies of all reports.
Will the doctor share the results of the Tests with us ?Can we assume if we get the sealed envelope ,every thing is fine ?
Will the doctor share the results of the Tests with us ?Can we assume if we get the sealed envelope ,every thing is fine ?
prabirmehta
03-22 02:56 PM
Actually the provisions in S 1932 (Sections 8001 and 8002) were dropped when the bill went to the House. The members who handled the fate of the immigration provisions in the house were Reps Conyers, Sessenbrenner and Lamars. It was argued that the Budget Reconciliation Bill (S 1932) should not include any immigration provisions as they should instead be included in future Comprehensive immigration reform. These sections which had already been passed by the Senate were dropped quietly by the 3 member panel in the final conference report. Given the rush to pass this bill among others, members of the Senate may not be aware that these provisions were dropped when they got to the house. While new legislation offers to increase the EB quotas, the provision to allow one to apply for I-485 (GC) and I-140 concurrently upon receiving Labor certification clearance even in the absence of a current visa number ( current priority date) is missing from the proposals, a key measure that would greatly alleviate the suffering of those who suffer from visa retrogression.
Thanks for the information. I have sent a personal e-mail to Senator Chambliss following up on the phone conversating and requesting a meeting. I have also sent personal e-mails to my other representatives. I will call them on Friday.
Thanks for the information. I have sent a personal e-mail to Senator Chambliss following up on the phone conversating and requesting a meeting. I have also sent personal e-mails to my other representatives. I will call them on Friday.
2011 ombing of Nagasaki,
GC_ki_daud
03-13 03:17 PM
bump
Please help with a reply
Please help with a reply
more...
Hassan11
04-09 12:47 PM
49 views of this thread and no replies. Please anybody out there, any suggestions or answers? Thank you
bajjuri77
03-27 10:39 AM
To answer your questions:
1. Transfer from H4 to F1 is very straight forward and you can do it yourself. I did the same for my wife.
2. You need to show 1 yr expenses in your account.
3. One year should be fine.
4. If your parents want to fund her study, then you have list them as one of the sponsor and then show the money in the bank.
1. Transfer from H4 to F1 is very straight forward and you can do it yourself. I did the same for my wife.
2. You need to show 1 yr expenses in your account.
3. One year should be fine.
4. If your parents want to fund her study, then you have list them as one of the sponsor and then show the money in the bank.
more...
chapsi29
04-02 11:22 AM
Thanks for the immediate response.
Well in my GC labor application, I see 2 wages and both are above my salary. With pay checks pending, my W2 income for 2007 is going to be even lower than my annual salary. Thats why I am very concerned. I have not received my pay stubs too but I can get it if I want to. They said they can issue the pay stubs but there is going to be a delay in paying the salary as the company is going through some financial problems..
Does the USCIS check my W2 income for 2007? How do they get access to that info ? Just curious. Does the IRS and USCIS communicate in this process?
Thanks
Well in my GC labor application, I see 2 wages and both are above my salary. With pay checks pending, my W2 income for 2007 is going to be even lower than my annual salary. Thats why I am very concerned. I have not received my pay stubs too but I can get it if I want to. They said they can issue the pay stubs but there is going to be a delay in paying the salary as the company is going through some financial problems..
Does the USCIS check my W2 income for 2007? How do they get access to that info ? Just curious. Does the IRS and USCIS communicate in this process?
Thanks
2010 of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
qualified_trash
01-30 12:28 AM
why did they revoke it after approving it?
more...
Dhundhun
06-14 02:39 PM
I am working in Company A and currently on OPT. My 2008 H1visa has been approved. It will be effective on Oct.1st. Now I got a much better job offer from company B, and need to join the new company in July. How can I transfer my H1 visa? Thanks a lot in advance. By the way, I can work on OPT for any employer before Oct 1st.
Is it not that three contineous salary slips (on prev. H-1B employment) required for filing H-1B by new employer?
If such changeover is allowed, it it not misuse of system? People have applied multiple H-1B due to lottery. If this is allowed, people can easily move to the employer they wanted without going through the USCIS approved employer.
And I have been hearing that there are many employers ready to file H1B if you pay them cash.
Is it not that three contineous salary slips (on prev. H-1B employment) required for filing H-1B by new employer?
If such changeover is allowed, it it not misuse of system? People have applied multiple H-1B due to lottery. If this is allowed, people can easily move to the employer they wanted without going through the USCIS approved employer.
And I have been hearing that there are many employers ready to file H1B if you pay them cash.
hair ombing of hiroshima
nozerd
12-17 09:18 PM
Yup, same here. 7 yrs 5 months and waiting.
Even friends have stopped asking me when I will get my GC. I think they may have asked so many times they got tired.
Funny to see ppl now a days getting labor in 3 months for what took me 4 plus yrs.
Hav been current since Oct 1st this yr and still nothing. It used to hurt but now am numb to the pain. Just hope the same job I have been in since 9 yrs still keeps me until some positive outcome comes (if it ever does).
Even friends have stopped asking me when I will get my GC. I think they may have asked so many times they got tired.
Funny to see ppl now a days getting labor in 3 months for what took me 4 plus yrs.
Hav been current since Oct 1st this yr and still nothing. It used to hurt but now am numb to the pain. Just hope the same job I have been in since 9 yrs still keeps me until some positive outcome comes (if it ever does).
more...
ivuser9
03-27 09:54 PM
How did you manage to pull this one off ? you got an EAD without applying for GC ?!!
Thats funny :-)
cinqsit
I think we meant to ask which category you applied for GC and got EAD
Thats funny :-)
cinqsit
I think we meant to ask which category you applied for GC and got EAD
hot that ombed Hiroshima and
kishdam
02-11 02:14 PM
The 800K pending 485s include people who have filed multiple 485s.
Cases like
1) Spouses filing thier own as well as dependant.
2) More then one primary filing.
So i guess there are about 100K duplicate and invalid applications.
In a way our community contributes to our own downfall...
Processing will also be delayed by people filing unnecessary Service requests for FP & AP etc., even when there is no use in near term just to be on par with everyone else.
I think that is not really true - You cannot file more than one I485 as in other stages of immigration process (you can file multiple H1B’s; multiple I140’s etc). Because I485 is for adjustment of status to an individual and is unique for each individual. Yes there will be applications for primary and dependent but each of them take a visa number anyway and they have to be counted.
In the I485 – adjustment of status - an applicant can change the preference category (EB2 vs EB3) by interfiling new I140 approval i.e. by suppling the new I140 approval papers which will update an existing I485 but cannot file a new I485. This is true for EB category cases. I am not sure if we can apply I485 in EB and FB categories – I doubt that as well but even if its possible how many people in EB category can have FB application pending? My guess is less than 1%.
If 800K has both FB and EB applications, majority of them may be FB but even in EB there can be huge backlog. Considering country quotas we are looking at very long waits unless the law change.
Cases like
1) Spouses filing thier own as well as dependant.
2) More then one primary filing.
So i guess there are about 100K duplicate and invalid applications.
In a way our community contributes to our own downfall...
Processing will also be delayed by people filing unnecessary Service requests for FP & AP etc., even when there is no use in near term just to be on par with everyone else.
I think that is not really true - You cannot file more than one I485 as in other stages of immigration process (you can file multiple H1B’s; multiple I140’s etc). Because I485 is for adjustment of status to an individual and is unique for each individual. Yes there will be applications for primary and dependent but each of them take a visa number anyway and they have to be counted.
In the I485 – adjustment of status - an applicant can change the preference category (EB2 vs EB3) by interfiling new I140 approval i.e. by suppling the new I140 approval papers which will update an existing I485 but cannot file a new I485. This is true for EB category cases. I am not sure if we can apply I485 in EB and FB categories – I doubt that as well but even if its possible how many people in EB category can have FB application pending? My guess is less than 1%.
If 800K has both FB and EB applications, majority of them may be FB but even in EB there can be huge backlog. Considering country quotas we are looking at very long waits unless the law change.
more...
house Bombings Of Hiroshima And
pa_arora
03-11 12:27 PM
I am sorry if this is a re-post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030601926.html
----
They're Taking Their Brains and Going Home
By Vivek Wadhwa
Sunday, March 8, 2009; Page B02
Seven years ago, Sandeep Nijsure left his home in Mumbai to study computer science at the University of North Texas. Master's degree in hand, he went to work for Microsoft. He valued his education and enjoyed the job, but he worried about his aging parents. He missed watching cricket, celebrating Hindu festivals and following the twists of Indian politics. His wife was homesick, too, and her visa didn't allow her to work.
Not long ago, Sandeep would have faced a tough choice: either go home and give up opportunities for wealth and U.S. citizenship, or stay and bide his time until his application for a green card goes through. But last year, Sandeep returned to India and landed a software development position with Amazon.com in Hyderabad. He and his wife live a few blocks from their families in a spacious, air-conditioned house. No longer at the mercy of the American employer sponsoring his visa, Sandeep can more easily determine the course of his career. "We are very happy with our move," he told me in an e-mail.
The United States has always been the country to which the world's best and brightest -- people like Sandeep -- have flocked in pursuit of education and to seek their fortunes. Over the past four decades, India and China suffered a major "brain drain" as tens of thousands of talented people made their way here, dreaming the American dream.
But burgeoning new economies abroad and flagging prospects in the United States have changed everything. And as opportunities pull immigrants home, the lumbering U.S. immigration bureaucracy helps push them away.
When I started teaching at Duke University in 2005, almost all the international students graduating from our Master of Engineering Management program said that they planned to stay in the United States for at least a few years. In the class of 2009, most of our 80 international students are buying one-way tickets home. It's the same at Harvard. Senior economics major Meijie Tang, from China, isn't even bothering to look for a job in the United States. After hearing from other students that it's "impossible" to get an H-1B visa -- the kind given to highly-skilled workers in fields such as engineering and science -- she teamed up with a classmate to start a technology company in Shanghai. Investors in China offered to put up millions even before 23-year-old Meijie and her 21-year-old colleague completed their business plan.
When smart young foreigners leave these shores, they take with them the seeds of tomorrow's innovation. Almost 25 percent of all international patent applications filed from the United States in 2006 named foreign nationals as inventors. Immigrants founded a quarter of all U.S. engineering and technology companies started between 1995 and 2005, including half of those in Silicon Valley. In 2005 alone, immigrants' businesses generated $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers.
Yet rather than welcome these entrepreneurs, the U.S. government is confining many of them to a painful purgatory. As of Sept. 30, 2006, more than a million people were waiting for the 120,000 permanent-resident visas granted each year to skilled workers and their family members. No nation may claim more than 7 percent, so years may pass before immigrants from populous countries such as India and China are even considered.
Like many Indians, Girija Subramaniam is fed up. After earning a master's in electrical engineering from the University of Virginia in 1998, she joined Texas Instruments as a test engineer. She wanted to stay in the United States, applied for permanent residency in 2002 and has been trapped in immigration limbo ever since. If she so much as accepts a promotion or, heaven forbid, starts her own company, she will lose her place in line. Frustrated, she has applied for fast-track Canadian permanent residency and expects to move north of the border by the end of the year.
For the Kaufmann Foundation, I recently surveyed 1,200 Indians and Chinese who worked or studied in the United States and then returned home. Most were in their 30s, and 80 percent held master's degrees or doctorates in management, technology or science -- precisely the kind of people who could make the greatest contribution to the U.S. economy. A sizable number said that they had advanced significantly in their careers since leaving the United States. They were more optimistic about opportunities for entrepreneurship, and more than half planned to start their own businesses, if they had not done so already. Only a quarter said that they were likely to return to the United States.
Why does all this matter? Because just as the United States has relied on foreigners to underwrite its deficit, it has also depended on smart immigrants to staff its laboratories, engineering design studios and tech firms. An analysis of the 2000 Census showed that although immigrants accounted for only 12 percent of the U.S. workforce, they made up 47 percent of all scientists and engineers with doctorates. What's more, 67 percent of all those who entered the fields of science and engineering between 1995 and 2006 were immigrants. What will happen to America's competitive edge when these people go home?
Immigrants who leave the United States will launch companies, file patents and fill the intellectual coffers of other countries. Their talents will benefit nations such as India, China and Canada, not the United States. America's loss will be the world's gain.
wadhwa@duke.edu
Vivek Wadhwa is a senior research associate at Harvard Law School and executive in residence at Duke University.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030601926.html
----
They're Taking Their Brains and Going Home
By Vivek Wadhwa
Sunday, March 8, 2009; Page B02
Seven years ago, Sandeep Nijsure left his home in Mumbai to study computer science at the University of North Texas. Master's degree in hand, he went to work for Microsoft. He valued his education and enjoyed the job, but he worried about his aging parents. He missed watching cricket, celebrating Hindu festivals and following the twists of Indian politics. His wife was homesick, too, and her visa didn't allow her to work.
Not long ago, Sandeep would have faced a tough choice: either go home and give up opportunities for wealth and U.S. citizenship, or stay and bide his time until his application for a green card goes through. But last year, Sandeep returned to India and landed a software development position with Amazon.com in Hyderabad. He and his wife live a few blocks from their families in a spacious, air-conditioned house. No longer at the mercy of the American employer sponsoring his visa, Sandeep can more easily determine the course of his career. "We are very happy with our move," he told me in an e-mail.
The United States has always been the country to which the world's best and brightest -- people like Sandeep -- have flocked in pursuit of education and to seek their fortunes. Over the past four decades, India and China suffered a major "brain drain" as tens of thousands of talented people made their way here, dreaming the American dream.
But burgeoning new economies abroad and flagging prospects in the United States have changed everything. And as opportunities pull immigrants home, the lumbering U.S. immigration bureaucracy helps push them away.
When I started teaching at Duke University in 2005, almost all the international students graduating from our Master of Engineering Management program said that they planned to stay in the United States for at least a few years. In the class of 2009, most of our 80 international students are buying one-way tickets home. It's the same at Harvard. Senior economics major Meijie Tang, from China, isn't even bothering to look for a job in the United States. After hearing from other students that it's "impossible" to get an H-1B visa -- the kind given to highly-skilled workers in fields such as engineering and science -- she teamed up with a classmate to start a technology company in Shanghai. Investors in China offered to put up millions even before 23-year-old Meijie and her 21-year-old colleague completed their business plan.
When smart young foreigners leave these shores, they take with them the seeds of tomorrow's innovation. Almost 25 percent of all international patent applications filed from the United States in 2006 named foreign nationals as inventors. Immigrants founded a quarter of all U.S. engineering and technology companies started between 1995 and 2005, including half of those in Silicon Valley. In 2005 alone, immigrants' businesses generated $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers.
Yet rather than welcome these entrepreneurs, the U.S. government is confining many of them to a painful purgatory. As of Sept. 30, 2006, more than a million people were waiting for the 120,000 permanent-resident visas granted each year to skilled workers and their family members. No nation may claim more than 7 percent, so years may pass before immigrants from populous countries such as India and China are even considered.
Like many Indians, Girija Subramaniam is fed up. After earning a master's in electrical engineering from the University of Virginia in 1998, she joined Texas Instruments as a test engineer. She wanted to stay in the United States, applied for permanent residency in 2002 and has been trapped in immigration limbo ever since. If she so much as accepts a promotion or, heaven forbid, starts her own company, she will lose her place in line. Frustrated, she has applied for fast-track Canadian permanent residency and expects to move north of the border by the end of the year.
For the Kaufmann Foundation, I recently surveyed 1,200 Indians and Chinese who worked or studied in the United States and then returned home. Most were in their 30s, and 80 percent held master's degrees or doctorates in management, technology or science -- precisely the kind of people who could make the greatest contribution to the U.S. economy. A sizable number said that they had advanced significantly in their careers since leaving the United States. They were more optimistic about opportunities for entrepreneurship, and more than half planned to start their own businesses, if they had not done so already. Only a quarter said that they were likely to return to the United States.
Why does all this matter? Because just as the United States has relied on foreigners to underwrite its deficit, it has also depended on smart immigrants to staff its laboratories, engineering design studios and tech firms. An analysis of the 2000 Census showed that although immigrants accounted for only 12 percent of the U.S. workforce, they made up 47 percent of all scientists and engineers with doctorates. What's more, 67 percent of all those who entered the fields of science and engineering between 1995 and 2006 were immigrants. What will happen to America's competitive edge when these people go home?
Immigrants who leave the United States will launch companies, file patents and fill the intellectual coffers of other countries. Their talents will benefit nations such as India, China and Canada, not the United States. America's loss will be the world's gain.
wadhwa@duke.edu
Vivek Wadhwa is a senior research associate at Harvard Law School and executive in residence at Duke University.
tattoo The Bombing of Hiroshima
rvenkat1976
04-13 12:18 AM
Thanks for all your answers.
Now that I have consulted another lawyer for a second opinion. According to him he says I am legally IN STATUS.
He asked me to send an email to the attorney asking for the whole case detail from the begining, mentioning that I would otherwise report this to the bar association.
Now did anyone have any specific format in which this email has to be written any help in this matter will be appriciated.
Thanks
Now that I have consulted another lawyer for a second opinion. According to him he says I am legally IN STATUS.
He asked me to send an email to the attorney asking for the whole case detail from the begining, mentioning that I would otherwise report this to the bar association.
Now did anyone have any specific format in which this email has to be written any help in this matter will be appriciated.
Thanks
more...
pictures Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
uslegals
10-18 04:25 PM
Check with the attorney who has filed for 140. I guess the norm is that attorney also get RN and approval copies.
dresses The Hiroshima/Nagasaki Legacy
potrero
04-30 08:58 PM
Great !
Need to know if some one has done with I-140 approved from two different company and still did the porting with the earliest priority dates.....
Need to know if some one has done with I-140 approved from two different company and still did the porting with the earliest priority dates.....
more...
makeup It is not a omb. Hiroshima
gccovet
06-29 02:45 AM
For folks who are past the 180 day period:-
When negotiating a new job offer, what does one have verify with HR of the new company specifically with regard to AC 21 portability? :confused:
Most recruiters / HR folks know nothing about AC21 etc. (Most when they hear green card, say per company policy, they will start haver 1 yr!).
Should one ever bother about confusing the new employer about AC21? (Assume that Job titiles and descriptions are practically the same. Nothing drastically different. And taking the new job on H1b transfer. i.e. not on EAD).
(PS: I am not taking from the context of desi consulting firms where it might be easier to get any letter with exact same job description etc.).
I would just check if HR would be willing to provide a letter addressed to USCIS on their letterhead stating about new job title and job duties. Even if you send the letter right after joining or when you (might) get a RFE.
GCCovet
When negotiating a new job offer, what does one have verify with HR of the new company specifically with regard to AC 21 portability? :confused:
Most recruiters / HR folks know nothing about AC21 etc. (Most when they hear green card, say per company policy, they will start haver 1 yr!).
Should one ever bother about confusing the new employer about AC21? (Assume that Job titiles and descriptions are practically the same. Nothing drastically different. And taking the new job on H1b transfer. i.e. not on EAD).
(PS: I am not taking from the context of desi consulting firms where it might be easier to get any letter with exact same job description etc.).
I would just check if HR would be willing to provide a letter addressed to USCIS on their letterhead stating about new job title and job duties. Even if you send the letter right after joining or when you (might) get a RFE.
GCCovet
girlfriend in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
RadioactveChimp
04-16 02:02 AM
yes yes I know...let's leave this in the past alright? :lol:
hairstyles Hiroshima amp; Nagasaki Terror
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
LOL123
07-30 11:47 AM
Bump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
learning01
05-23 02:31 PM
Currently there is no way to pay this USD 100 from US. You have to arrange a contact, your relative etc, ask them to go to designated HDFC banks in India, pay the fees. Get the bar code # on the HDFC receipt over phone, and using that start filling an online application.
Remember, you NEED the ORIGINAL receipt to attend the visa interview. So, get it by Regd. Post or let your contact keep it in a safe place, you collect that when you meet him in India.
please tell me how can we pay $100 fee through online from USA. for getting that receipt number in order to file application for stamping?
Jc_gc
Remember, you NEED the ORIGINAL receipt to attend the visa interview. So, get it by Regd. Post or let your contact keep it in a safe place, you collect that when you meet him in India.
please tell me how can we pay $100 fee through online from USA. for getting that receipt number in order to file application for stamping?
Jc_gc
No comments:
Post a Comment