- Jurisdiction
- Washington
Hello,
Thank you in advance for taking a look at and reading my question.
So there is a physical therapist that recently signed an new contract with their employer (a small business). In the contract they are required to maintain a weekly patient load of 80% as well as market the business out to get more patients to come to their "office." Since this is a small business without connections to any hospital or clinics in the area, which as a result they have relatively no patients referred to them by doctors or surgeons, it seems almost impossible to be able to maintain such a patient workload without any help from the business itself. Even though they had signed the contract, is this legal? They are legitimately the top physical therapist that sees more patients per week than any other, and yet her bosses constantly create a toxic work environment. There are two different types of work schedules for the employees at this business. She is the only physical therapist required to be on this second schedule that gives no breaks in between patients, thus requiring them to have more patient slots than any other employee. They are under the 80% mark on their schedule but well over it on the other employees schedules. However, their bosses are now requiring them to submit weekly spreadsheets which I believe are to build a case against them for a breach of contract.
Additionally, this business is owned by a man and wife who have two physical therapy locations where the bigger one is licensed as a gym and not a physical therapy clinic. The other smaller location where the referenced physical therapist is practicing out of is a residential house, or according to the cities official addressing website, it is a "Single Family(C/I Zone)." I haven't been able to figure out what a C/I zone is but the employees can't put up any signs with the businesses name on it to advertise that it is a business. This is leaving the patients confused and worried that they have shown up to some ones house and not a real business. This seems to me that they were basically destined to fail from the beginning and it seems out of their control, no matter how much they are out marketing for the business, to be able to maintain such a patient workload without any help from the business itself.
Thank you again for reading my post, I know it is a long one but even one question answered will be greatly appreciated.
- Is the contract legal when even the business owners know their employee would not be able to fulfill the terms? Even when the business should be questioned about its legality?
-
Black and white:
They signed the contract with these terms listed.
Also in the contract, I was told that, they are required to bill insurance companies a particular way for certain exercises and treatments even if they were not performed on the patient. While I have seen a picture of the first page of the contract showing the expectations of at least 80% and so on, but I have not seen this requirement. However, if it truly is in the employees contract, could this be seen as insurance fraud thus deeming the contract illegal and void?
Thank you again we sincerely appreciate the help,
Michael
Thank you in advance for taking a look at and reading my question.
So there is a physical therapist that recently signed an new contract with their employer (a small business). In the contract they are required to maintain a weekly patient load of 80% as well as market the business out to get more patients to come to their "office." Since this is a small business without connections to any hospital or clinics in the area, which as a result they have relatively no patients referred to them by doctors or surgeons, it seems almost impossible to be able to maintain such a patient workload without any help from the business itself. Even though they had signed the contract, is this legal? They are legitimately the top physical therapist that sees more patients per week than any other, and yet her bosses constantly create a toxic work environment. There are two different types of work schedules for the employees at this business. She is the only physical therapist required to be on this second schedule that gives no breaks in between patients, thus requiring them to have more patient slots than any other employee. They are under the 80% mark on their schedule but well over it on the other employees schedules. However, their bosses are now requiring them to submit weekly spreadsheets which I believe are to build a case against them for a breach of contract.
Additionally, this business is owned by a man and wife who have two physical therapy locations where the bigger one is licensed as a gym and not a physical therapy clinic. The other smaller location where the referenced physical therapist is practicing out of is a residential house, or according to the cities official addressing website, it is a "Single Family(C/I Zone)." I haven't been able to figure out what a C/I zone is but the employees can't put up any signs with the businesses name on it to advertise that it is a business. This is leaving the patients confused and worried that they have shown up to some ones house and not a real business. This seems to me that they were basically destined to fail from the beginning and it seems out of their control, no matter how much they are out marketing for the business, to be able to maintain such a patient workload without any help from the business itself.
Thank you again for reading my post, I know it is a long one but even one question answered will be greatly appreciated.
- Is the contract legal when even the business owners know their employee would not be able to fulfill the terms? Even when the business should be questioned about its legality?
-
Black and white:
They signed the contract with these terms listed.
Also in the contract, I was told that, they are required to bill insurance companies a particular way for certain exercises and treatments even if they were not performed on the patient. While I have seen a picture of the first page of the contract showing the expectations of at least 80% and so on, but I have not seen this requirement. However, if it truly is in the employees contract, could this be seen as insurance fraud thus deeming the contract illegal and void?
Thank you again we sincerely appreciate the help,
Michael
