Supreme Court

23-0724 - Carrozzella v. BioTE Med., LLC

Carrozzella v. BioTE Med., LLC

Case number: 23-0724
Legal category: Contracts
Subtype: Enforceability
Set for oral argument: March 18, 2025

Case Summary

In this case, Dr. Carrozzella challenges the court of appeals’ rulings that the Covenants Not to Compete Act did not apply to a provision of his contract with BioTE Medical, that the provision was not otherwise void, and that BioTE could therefore enforce the provision in the underlying suit.

Carrozzella treats patients suffering from hormone imbalances. BioTE contracted with Carrozzella to provide him equipment and support necessary to offer BioTE’s pellet therapy to Carrozzella’s patients. The contract stated that, should Carrozzella ever provide a different supplier’s pellet therapy, he would owe BioTE a one-time “Residual Benefit” fee, equal to the highest average fees Carrozzella paid BioTE in any three-month period during the previous year. In 2020, Carrozzella notified BioTE that he would no longer use its services, planned to provide a different pellet therapy, and did not consider the fee provision enforceable.

BioTE sued Carrozzella, who moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the residual benefit fee was an unenforceable restraint on competition under the Covenants Not to Compete Act. The trial court granted Carrozzella’s motion, and BioTE appealed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the residual benefit fee was not a covenant not to compete. The court of appeals also held that the agreement was not unenforceable as violative of public policy.

Carrozzella petitioned the Supreme Court for review, arguing that the residual benefit fee is an unenforceable restraint on competition under both the Covenants Not to Compete Act and Chapter 15 of the Business and Commerce Code generally. The Supreme Court granted the petition for review.

Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.