TriHealth, the Cincinnati-based nonprofit health system, has been involved in several notable lawsuits over the past five years. Those TriHealth lawsuits include a 2021 noncompete case against 18 of its own gastroenterologists, two pending federal whistleblower suits alleging illegal kickback arrangements, and a 401(k) class action that produced a mixed appellate ruling in 2022. The whistleblower cases remain active as of 2026.
The 2021 Gastroenterologist Noncompete Case
In spring 2021, TriHealth sued 18 gastroenterologists in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court to enforce one-year noncompete clauses in their employment contracts.1Cincinnati Business Courier. TriHealth Sues Doctor Group The doctors were preparing to leave together and practice independently.
Their contracts contained an unusual escape hatch: if 75 percent of the department departed at the same time, the noncompete became unenforceable.2Becker’s ASC Review. Hospital Sues Gastroenterologists Attempting to Exit Contracts The physicians said they had met that threshold. TriHealth argued the 18th doctor, who had moved his retirement date to line up with the group’s June 28 departure, should not count. Whether he did or didn’t was the whole fight.
The case resolved quickly. By early July 2021, TriHealth announced a resolution with 17 of the departing physicians on undisclosed terms.3Cincinnati Business Courier. TriHealth Physicians Exit to Join Gastro Health The doctors joined Gastro Health, a Miami-based practice group, and began seeing patients across nine Cincinnati-area locations.4Becker’s ASC Review. Gastro Health Partners With 17 Gastroenterologists Who Left Hospital
Whistleblower Kickback Suits: The Murphy Case
On March 4, 2019, Timothy Murphy, the former Chief Financial Officer of TriHealth Physician Partners, filed a False Claims Act suit against TriHealth in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.5Horty Springer. U.S. Ex Rel. Murphy v. TriHealth, Inc. Murphy oversaw finances for the arm of the system that employs more than 500 doctors.
He alleges TriHealth, along with Good Samaritan and Bethesda North hospitals, paid physicians above fair market value to drive referral volume in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Act. According to the complaint, TriHealth transferred about $508 million in subsidies to its physician group between 2014 and 2019 to cover losses generated by inflated compensation, and paid “sham management fees” to doctors who performed no added duties. Murphy alleges TriHealth then billed Medicare while falsely certifying compliance with federal law.5Horty Springer. U.S. Ex Rel. Murphy v. TriHealth, Inc.
Murphy also brings a personal retaliation claim. He alleges that after he raised internal objections to the compensation structure, TriHealth leadership threatened his job and eventually forced him to resign.5Horty Springer. U.S. Ex Rel. Murphy v. TriHealth, Inc.
The Shahbabian Whistleblower Case
On January 27, 2020, Dr. Set Shahbabian, a neurosurgeon, filed a related False Claims Act suit alleging a referral-swap arrangement between TriHealth and the Mayfield Clinic. The complaint says Mayfield steered University of Cincinnati Health patients to Good Samaritan and Bethesda North, while TriHealth in turn steered Shahbabian’s patients to Mayfield physicians. Shahbabian alleges the arrangement tainted the claims TriHealth submitted to federal health programs.6Horty Springer. U.S. Ex Rel. Shahbabian v. TriHealth, Inc.
An earlier and separate suit Shahbabian brought against TriHealth on age and disability discrimination grounds ended badly for him. The district court granted summary judgment to TriHealth and the Mayfield Clinic on all twelve of his claims, ruled for TriHealth on a breach-of-contract counterclaim, and ordered Shahbabian to repay $679,711.61 in unearned compensation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in March 2023.7Horty Springer. Shahbabian v. TriHealth, Inc.
Where the Whistleblower Cases Stand in 2026
The United States declined to intervene in both the Murphy and Shahbabian suits, so the whistleblowers are pursuing the claims themselves.6Horty Springer. U.S. Ex Rel. Shahbabian v. TriHealth, Inc. TriHealth moved to dismiss both cases, arguing that the qui tam mechanism, which allows private citizens to sue on behalf of the government, is unconstitutional under Article II.
In July 2025, Judge Douglas R. Cole denied those motions, finding that the whistleblowers had standing and that binding Sixth Circuit precedent upheld qui tam suits. He certified the constitutional question for immediate appeal, given signals that the U.S. Supreme Court might revisit it.6Horty Springer. U.S. Ex Rel. Shahbabian v. TriHealth, Inc.
On January 9, 2026, the Sixth Circuit rejected TriHealth’s petitions for interlocutory review, finding “no substantial grounds for difference of opinion” and reaffirming that its 1994 decision in United States ex rel. Taxpayers Against Fraud v. General Electric Co. remained controlling.8Whistleblower LLC. Sixth Circuit’s Murphy v. TriHealth: FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions Remain Constitutional The cases remain stayed. The broader constitutional issue could be shaped by the Eleventh Circuit’s pending decision in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, where a Florida federal judge ruled qui tam suits unconstitutional in 2024. A circuit split could send the question to the Supreme Court.
The 401(k) Class Action: Forman v. TriHealth
Three employees sued TriHealth under ERISA in Forman v. TriHealth, Inc., alleging the health system breached its fiduciary duty by selecting expensive retail-class mutual fund shares when identical, cheaper institutional-class shares were available. The plan held roughly $457 million in assets and had more than 12,000 participants, which the plaintiffs argued made it large enough to qualify for the lower-cost options.9U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Forman v. TriHealth, Inc.
In July 2022, the Sixth Circuit issued a split ruling. It affirmed dismissal of the claims about overall plan fees and the inclusion of actively managed funds, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown fees were excessive relative to the services provided. But it reversed on the share-class allegation, letting that claim proceed to discovery.9U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Forman v. TriHealth, Inc.
Ohio Noncompete Legislation After the Gastroenterology Case
The 2021 mass departure became a touchstone in Ohio’s debate over hospital noncompetes. Ohio has no statute governing physician noncompetes; courts evaluate them case by case for reasonableness, and they have generally been skeptical of restrictions that limit patient access to care.10Ohio Capital Journal. Ohio Proposal Would Limit Noncompete Contracts in the Medical Field
Ohio Senate Bill 301, sponsored by Sen. Terry Johnson, a retired osteopathic physician, would cap noncompetes for physicians, physician assistants, and advanced practice registered nurses at nonprofit hospitals at six months and a 15-mile radius from one identified work location.11Cleveland.com. Senate Bill Seeks to Curb Noncompete Agreements That Doctors Say Limit Their Practice The bill has had three hearings in the Senate General Government Committee but no vote.12Ohio Senate. Senate Bill 301 The Ohio State Medical Association supports it; the Ohio Chamber of Commerce opposes it. A broader Senate Bill 11 that would ban all Ohio noncompetes has stalled in the Judiciary Committee with no hearings since March 2025.10Ohio Capital Journal. Ohio Proposal Would Limit Noncompete Contracts in the Medical Field At the federal level, the FTC abandoned its proposed nationwide noncompete ban in September 2025 after legal challenges blocked it.