In the area of physician employment contracts, seemingly benign terms can lead to considerable misunderstandings between doctors and their employers. A common challenge arises with the term “consultation,” which, although a specialized term in medical practice denoting a doctor’s primary role in diagnosis and treatment, carries a different implication in legal and business settings. In these contexts, a consultation merely denotes a conversation or exchange of ideas without any suggestion of authority or final decision-making power.

A notable instance of this divergence took place during the negotiation of a physician employment contract related to clinical scheduling. The physician asked for the addition of language specifying that her clinical schedule be created “after consultation with Physician.” This wording, based on her previous agreements, led her to assume she would hold considerable sway over her schedule. However, the employer interpreted “consultation” as simply a discussion with no obligation to follow the physician’s preferences.

This discrepancy could become evident in scenarios where the employer opts for a substantial alteration, like requiring the physician to cover a remote facility, affecting her compensation tied to patient volume and production. Regardless of any personal objections, the employer would have met the contractual obligation of consultation by merely discussing the scheduling change with the physician.

To avert such traps, it is vital for physicians to have their employment contracts scrutinized by legal professionals who grasp both legal terminology and how seemingly simple language could be understood. Altering contract language to mandate “mutual agreement” instead of “consultation” can more effectively protect a physician’s interests.

Physicians may encounter difficulties not only from intricate legal language but also from straightforward provisions that can bear unexpected interpretations or implications. To mitigate these unforeseen complications, seeking guidance from seasoned healthcare attorneys is recommended, ensuring that employment agreements do not conceal unwelcome surprises or misinterpretations harmful to a physician’s career path and fulfillment.

Dennis Hursh, an attorney with more than forty years of experience in health law, promotes this cautious approach. He has delivered numerous talks and authored publications, such as “The Final Hurdle – A Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement,” aimed at equipping physicians with the insight to navigate their employment contracts successfully and safeguard their professional rights and interests.