Veterinary Non-Competes in Ohio
Ohio has no general or healthcare-specific non-compete statute, so a veterinarian's covenant is judged under the common-law reasonableness test set out in Raimonde v.
Van Vlerah in 1975.
That test weighs time and space limits, access to confidential information, and whether the covenant protects a legitimate business interest rather than blocking ordinary competition.
There is no wage threshold and no fixed duration or geography cap, and Ohio courts hold full power to modify an overbroad covenant.
Raimonde remains controlling as of this page's September 2026 verification.
Mechanics, not a verdict on your contract
At a glance
Permitted — judged on reasonableness
Court decisions (no governing statute) — Ohio common law — no general or healthcare-specific non-compete statute exists; the covenant is governed by the reasonableness test from Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21 (Ohio 1975).
Healthcare statute reaches veterinarians: No healthcare-specific non-compete statute.
Ohio has no non-compete statute; a veterinarian's covenant is judged under the common-law reasonableness test from Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, which asks whether the restriction is no broader than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest, avoids undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.
Not applicable. Ohio has no healthcare-specific non-compete statute at all; the only Ohio Revised Code section checked, § 4113.03, is an unrelated fellow-servant liability provision, so a veterinarian's covenant is governed by the same common-law test as any other Ohio employee's.
No wage or pay threshold. Ohio has no non-compete statute, so the Raimonde reasonableness test applies to a veterinarian's covenant whatever the veterinarian earns.
No statutory duration or geography cap. Raimonde treats the presence or absence of time and space limitations as one factor in its reasonableness test rather than setting a fixed number of months or miles.
Full judicial modification power. Ohio courts may modify or amend an overbroad covenant and enforce it as modified, a rule Raimonde adopted in place of the older "blue pencil" strike-only approach.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not stated in the sources read.
Raimonde v. Van Vlerah was decided April 2, 1975, and remains controlling — most recently cited in Kross Acquisition Co. v. Groundworks Ohio, 2024-Ohio-592 (2024).
What Ohio’s text actually says
“A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if it is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public. Courts are empowered to modify or amend employment agreements to achieve such results.”
The reasonableness test Ohio courts apply under Raimonde v. Van Vlerah
Ohio has no general non-compete statute, so a veterinarian's covenant is measured against the common-law test the Ohio Supreme Court set out in Raimonde v.
Van Vlerah.
The test asks whether the restriction is no greater than required to protect the employer's legitimate interest, whether it imposes undue hardship on the veterinarian, and whether it is injurious to the public.
Raimonde also lists factors a court weighs in applying that test: the presence of time and space limits, whether the veterinarian was the sole client contact, whether the veterinarian holds confidential information or trade secrets, and whether the covenant merely suppresses ordinary competition rather than protecting a real business interest.
For an associate reading an offer, the covenant is measured against those specific factors rather than a fixed number of months or miles.
“We hold that a covenant not to compete which imposes unreasonable restrictions upon an employee will be enforced to the extent necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests.”
Why there is no healthcare-specific non-compete law for Ohio veterinarians
Ohio has not enacted a healthcare-practitioner non-compete statute of the kind passed elsewhere in the 2020s.
The only Ohio Revised Code section checked in this research, § 4113.03, is a fellow-servant liability provision unrelated to non-competes.
Because no such statute exists, a veterinarian's covenant is governed by the same Raimonde reasonableness test as any other Ohio employee's, not a separate healthcare-specific rule.
A later Ohio appellate decision, Ohio Urology, Inc. v.
Poll, 72 Ohio App. 3d 446 (1991), applied the Raimonde test to a physician's covenant without any statutory healthcare carve-out — consistent with there being no such carve-out for veterinary medicine either.
No salary floor and no fixed duration or geography cap
Ohio sets no wage or pay level below which a non-compete cannot be enforced, so the Raimonde test applies to a veterinarian's covenant whatever the veterinarian earns.
There is likewise no statutory cap on how long or how far a covenant can run; Raimonde instead treats the presence or absence of time and space limitations as one factor among several in its reasonableness inquiry, alongside things like whether the veterinarian was the practice's sole client contact or held confidential information.
A duration or radius in an Ohio veterinary offer is therefore measured against those factors, not against a bright-line number.
“[t]he absence or presence of limitations as to time and space... whether the employee represents the sole contact with the customer; whether the employee is possessed with confidential information or trade secrets; whether the covenant seeks to eliminate competition which would be unfair to the employer or merely seeks to eliminate ordinary competition; whether the covenant seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee; whether the benefit to the employer is disproportional to the detriment to the employee; whether the covenant operates as a bar to the employee's sole means of support; whether the employee's talent which the employer seeks to suppress was actually developed during the period of employment; and whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the main employment.”
Full judicial modification power, not the old blue-pencil rule
Before Raimonde, Ohio used the "blue pencil" test: a court could strike an unreasonable clause if it was divisible from the rest of the covenant, but could not rewrite it, and an indivisible unreasonable covenant failed in its entirety.
Raimonde abandoned that rule and gave Ohio courts the power to modify or amend the agreement to make it reasonable, then enforce it as modified.
For a veterinarian, that means the tools available to a court reviewing an overbroad clause include narrowing its time, area or scope directly, not only striking a divisible clause or voiding the whole covenant.
“Courts are empowered to modify or amend employment agreements to achieve such results.”
What this page does not answer for Ohio
The research behind this page reads Ohio's leading non-compete case; it does not address how Ohio treats a covenant tied to selling a veterinary practice or an ownership interest, or how client and staff non-solicitation clauses are handled beyond the general Raimonde factors.
Those questions matter most at a buy-in or buy-out, where a covenant is often drafted alongside the purchase terms.
They are left blank here rather than filled from another state's rule — take them to an Ohio attorney with the whole agreement in hand.
Have the agreement itself reviewed
Start with the mechanics
The reasonableness test, what a radius is measured from, the access-to-care argument, and the difference between a non-compete and a non-solicitation clause are covered in the national guide to veterinary non-competes. This page covers only what is specific to Ohio.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Ohio have a statute governing veterinary non-competes?
No. Ohio has neither a general non-compete statute nor a healthcare-specific one.
A veterinarian's covenant is instead judged under the common-law reasonableness test the Ohio Supreme Court set out in Raimonde v.
Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21 (Ohio 1975), which asks whether the restriction protects the employer's legitimate interest, avoids undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.
Have an Ohio attorney who handles veterinary employment contracts review your agreement against that test.
Is there a wage threshold below which an Ohio veterinarian can't be bound by a non-compete?
No. Ohio has no statute setting a wage floor for non-compete enforceability, so the Raimonde reasonableness test applies whatever a veterinarian earns.
That test looks at the restriction's time and space limits, the veterinarian's access to confidential information or trade secrets, and whether it merely blocks ordinary competition — not at income.
An Ohio employment attorney can tell you how those factors bear on your specific agreement.
What happens if an Ohio court finds a veterinarian's non-compete too broad?
Ohio courts hold the power to modify or amend an overbroad covenant and enforce it as modified, rather than being limited to striking a divisible clause or voiding an indivisible one — the older "blue pencil" rule that Raimonde v.
Van Vlerah abandoned in 1975.
That describes the tools a court has available, not how a specific clause in your contract would be handled.
An attorney who handles Ohio veterinary employment agreements can explain how that power might apply to your covenant.
Does selling my share of an Ohio veterinary practice change how a non-compete is treated?
The research behind this page does not address how Ohio treats a covenant tied to selling a practice or an ownership interest, so this page does not answer that question.
A buy-in or buy-out agreement may carry its own covenant negotiated alongside the purchase terms.
Before signing one, have an Ohio attorney who handles veterinary practice transactions review the covenant together with the purchase agreement.
When did Ohio's non-compete rule last change?
Ohio has no non-compete statute to amend; the governing rule remains the common-law test from Raimonde v.
Van Vlerah, decided April 2, 1975, and most recently cited as controlling in Kross Acquisition Co. v.
Groundworks Ohio, 2024-Ohio-592.
This page was last verified in September 2026.
Because courts continue to apply and cite this rule, confirm its current status with an Ohio attorney before relying on it.
More Ohio Non-Compete Resources
Sourced from Ohio’s own statute or leading court decisions (see the citations above). Verified September 2026; the governing provision was last amended Raimonde v. Van Vlerah was decided April 2, 1975, and remains controlling — most recently cited in Kross Acquisition Co. v. Groundworks Ohio, 2024-Ohio-592 (2024). This page is general information, not legal advice.