# Medical Professionals Caution: The Risks of Ambiguous Contracts to Your Career

Healthcare providers invest significant time preparing for their careers, often believing that dedication and excellence in patient care will safeguard their professional paths. Yet, many practitioners enter employment agreements without fully grasping certain contract elements that may expose them to risks. Health law attorney Dennis Hursh notes that ambiguous termination clauses in doctor contracts empower employers to terminate physicians indiscriminately—sometimes with life-altering repercussions.

In a segment of *The Podcast by KevinMD*, Hursh elaborates on his piece, *Medical professionals caution: The risks of ambiguous contracts to your career*, highlighting the necessity for physicians to meticulously evaluate contract language to shield themselves from potentially harmful situations.

—

## **The Risks of Ambiguous Termination Clauses**
Numerous physician employment agreements feature vague terminology allowing for termination if the employer judges that the physician is delivering “poor quality care.” At first glance, this may appear justified—no medical facility desires negligent practitioners. Nevertheless, Hursh points out, the critical concern is *who decides* what defines inadequate care.

In the absence of transparent, objective criteria or an independent review, employers possess the authority to dismiss physicians for nearly any reason masked as “quality concerns.” In certain instances, physicians have been let go for unrelated personal decisions, such as their attire. One striking case Hursh encountered involved a female interventional radiologist fired for being deemed “unprofessional”—a label solely based on her choice to don a purple flowered lead apron.

Another physician was terminated after missing a shift due to the passing of a family member, despite informing management ahead of time. His firing was classified under the vague heading of “poor quality care.”

These scenarios exemplify how organizational decisions, rather than genuine malpractice or incompetence, can dictate a doctor’s destiny.

—

## **The Implications of Unjust Dismissals**
Perhaps the most alarming outcome of such dismissals is the potential entry in the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB).

The NPDB serves as a national registry of adverse actions against healthcare providers, and once a physician is recorded, it follows them indefinitely throughout their career. Even if the entry is contested, the harm is lasting—each future employer, medical institution, or licensing board will demand clarification. Hursh recounted an incident where an attorney, “out of an abundance of precaution,” reported a physician’s short medical leave to the NPDB as a potential impairment issue, resulting in a prolonged stain on the doctor’s professional record.

A dismissal based on vaguely defined “quality concerns” might easily lead to an NPDB report, greatly hindering a physician’s future employment opportunities.

—

## **Strategies for Physicians to Safeguard Themselves**
Hursh advises that there are several crucial measures physicians can take to negotiate enhanced protections in their contracts:

### **1. Demand “Good Faith” and “Reasonable” Language**
Rather than permitting an employer to unilaterally define what equates to “poor quality care,” physicians should advocate for contracts that demand decisions to be made in *good faith* and grounded on *reasonable* assessments. These stipulations create a foundation for legal challenges if a termination is unjust.

### **2. Seek Independent Expert Evaluations**
A more substantial safeguard is to include a clause mandating a medical expert—agreed upon by both the employer and the physician—to assess the doctor’s quality of care. This guarantees that an impartial specialist reviews the physician’s performance, rather than a healthcare administrator lacking medical qualifications.

### **3. Forego Due Process Hearings**
Although it might seem rational to contest wrongful termination through internal hearings, Hursh cautions that due process reviews automatically invoke an NPDB report if a physician is deemed to have delivered substandard care. He instead suggests relying on expert assessments or structured dispute resolution processes before any termination takes place.

—

## **Strengthening Contracts**
Many physicians, particularly those early in their careers, enter into contracts without a complete understanding of the potential dangers. While termination clauses may not seem as urgent compared to salary or scheduling, Hursh underscores that they rank among the most perilous elements of employment agreements.

Furthermore, physicians should scrutinize contract specifics regarding:
– Employment location to evade unexpected relocations
– On-call responsibilities and corresponding compensation
– Explicit patient contact hour expectations

The reality is that ambiguous termination clauses are becoming increasingly prevalent. While some employers might consent to amend the language, others may be less accommodating. Nonetheless, physicians who advocate for more robust protections can significantly mitigate their chances of unjust termination.

—

## **Key Takeaways**
Dennis Hursh’s perspectives act as a critical alert for all physicians: employment contracts should never be regarded superficially. The implications of ambiguous termination clauses can be dire, affecting a doctor’s reputation, employability, and overall career trajectory.

Physicians must take the initiative in contract discussions, insisting on objective criteria, independent evaluations, and reasonable safeguards against arbitrary terminations. Given the significant repercussions, enlisting a legal expert to examine a contract is advisable.