CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS | NOTE 10. CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry. As a result, we commonly become involved in disputes, litigation and regulatory matters incidental to our operations, including governmental investigations, personal injury lawsuits, employment claims and other matters arising out of the normal conduct of our business. We record accruals for estimated losses relating to claims and lawsuits when available information indicates that a loss is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss or a range of loss. If a loss on a material matter is reasonably possible and estimable, we disclose an estimate of the loss or a range of loss. In cases where we have not disclosed an estimate, we have concluded that the loss is either not reasonably possible or the loss, or a range of loss, is not reasonably estimable, based on available information. Governmental Reviews and Lawsuits Healthcare companies are subject to numerous investigations by various governmental agencies. Further, private parties have the right to bring qui tam or “whistleblower” lawsuits against companies that allegedly submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government and, in some states, private payers. We and our subsidiaries have received inquiries in recent years from government agencies, and we may receive similar inquiries in future periods. The following matters are pending. · Clinica de la Mama Investigations and Qui Tam Action —As previously disclosed, we and four of our hospital subsidiaries are defendants in civil litigation ( United States of America, ex rel. Ralph D. Williams v. Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. ) that alleges that our hospital subsidiaries’ contractual arrangements with Hispanic Medical Management, Inc. (“HMM”) violated the federal and state anti-kickback statutes and false claims acts. HMM owned and operated clinics that provided, among other things, prenatal care predominantly to uninsured patients. The hospital subsidiaries contracted with HMM for translation, marketing, management and Medicaid eligibility determination services. The civil litigation originated as a qui tam lawsuit. Subsequently, the Georgia Attorne y General’s Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office intervened in the qui tam action. The four hospitals that are defendants in the proceeding are: Atlanta Medical Center, North Fulton Hospital, Spaldi ng Regional Hospital and Sylvan Grove Hospital. In addition to the litigation, the civil and criminal divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are conducting civil and criminal investigations of us, certain of our subsidiaries, and current and former employees with respect to the contractual arrangements between HMM and the four hospitals. We believe that the investigations focus on various time periods for each hospital (ranging from three months to 13 years) during which the respective hospital provided care to HMM patients. We are cooperating in the investigations and have responded, and continue to respond, to document and other requests pursuant to subpoenas issued to us and the four subsidiaries. Additional information regarding the procedural history of these investigations and the related qui tam action is contained in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2015. Although we intend to vigorously contest any allegations that we or our four hospital subsidiaries violated the law, it is not possible at this time to predict the ultimate outcome of the pending litigation, which has not yet proceeded to trial, nor the ultimate outcome of the government’s ongoing civil and criminal investigations. However, if the plaintiffs in the pending civil litigation were to prevail, the potential sanctions could include reimbursement of relevant government program payments received by the four hospital subsidiaries for uninsured HMM patients treated at the hospitals, the assessment of civil monetary penalties, including treble damages, and potential exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, if we or our subsidiaries were determined in any potential criminal proceeding to have violated the federal anti-kickback statute, the sanctions would also include fines, which could be significant, mandatory exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, or criminal sanctions against current or former employees. To the extent that either the civil or the criminal matter discussed above is determined adversely to our interests, such determination could have a material adverse effect on our business , financial condition or cash flows. The following previously reported matters have recently been resolved. · Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (“ICDs”) — Fifty-six of our hospitals were subject to a DOJ review that was commenced in March 2010 to determine whether ICD procedures performed at the hospitals from 2002 to 2010 complied with Medicare coverage requirements. In July 2015, we reached final agreement with the DOJ to resolve the investigation for approximately $12 million, which was fully reserved as of June 30, 2015 and paid on August 3, 2015. · Review of Conifer’s Debt Collection Activities —In order to resolve allegations that it had not fully complied in limited instances with debt validation and dispute resolution requirements under federal consumer protection laws, in June 2015, a Conifer subsidiary paid a civil penalty of less than $1 million and stipulated to a Consent Order issued by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). The Consent Order requires the Conifer subsidiary to: (i) improve its consumer protection compliance program; (ii) make periodic reports to the CFPB over five years; (iii) forgive approximately $1 million in consumer debt; and (iv) pay approximately $5 million in consumer redress. Management has established a reserve for this matter of approximately $6 million as of September 30, 2015. Antitrust Class Action Lawsuits Filed by Registered Nurses in Detroit and San Antonio On September 15, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between the parties in Cason-Merenda, et al. v. VHS of Michigan, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Medical Center, et al. , which was filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In that matter, a certified class composed of the registered nurses (exclusive of supervisory, managerial and advanced practical nurses) employed by eight unaffiliated Detroit-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems, including Detroit Medical Center (“DMC”), violated Section §1 of the federal Sherman Act by exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses. A subsidiary of Vanguard acquired DMC in January 2011, and we acquired Vanguard in October 2013. All of the defendant hospital systems other than DMC settled prior to our acquisition of Vanguard. We expect to make the $42 million settlement payment, which was fully reserved at September 30, 2015, in the three months ending March 31, 2016. In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al. , filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems, including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio regional hospitals violated Section §1 of the federal Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses’ compensation and exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The case had been stayed since 2008; however, in July 2015, the court lifted the stay and re-opened discovery. Because these proceedings are at an early stage, it is impossible at this time to predict their outcome with any certainty; however, we believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We will continue to seek to defeat class certification and vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs’ allegations. Ordinary Course Matters We are also subject to other claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business, including potential claims related to, among other things, the care and treatment provided at our hospitals and outpatient facilities, the application of various federal and state labor laws, tax audits and other matters. Although the results of these claims and lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the ultimate resolution of these ordinary course claims and lawsuits will not have a material effect on our business or financial condition. In addition, as previously reported, in the nine months ended September 30, 2015, we paid a total of approximately $14 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed in Louisiana in March 1997 alleging tortious invasion of privacy as a result of the potential disclosure of patient identifying records. We had made an initial deposit of approximately $6 million into an escrow account in late November 2014 and, based on low class participation as of March 31, 2015 (the end of the claims period), management reduced the reserve for this matter from approximately $12 million at December 31, 2014 to $8 million, recorded in discontinued operations, to reflect its then-current estimate of probable remaining liability. The case is now closed. New claims or inquiries may be initiated against us from time to time. These matters could (1) require us to pay substantial damages or amounts in judgments or settlements, which, individually or in the aggregate, could exceed amounts, if any, that may be recovered under our insurance policies where coverage applies and is available, (2) cause us to incur substantial expenses, (3) require significant time and attention from our management, and (4) cause us to close or sell hospitals or otherwise modify the way we conduct business. The table below presents reconciliations of the beginning and ending liability balances in connection with legal settlements and related costs recorded during the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 : Balances at Litigation and Balances at Beginning Investigation Cash End of of Period Costs Payments Other Period Nine Months Ended September 30, 2015 Continuing operations $ $ $ $ $ Discontinued operations — $ $ $ $ $ Nine Months Ended September 30, 2014 Continuing operations $ $ $ $ — $ Discontinued operations — $ $ $ $ — $ For the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 , we recorded costs of $67 million and $19 million, respectively, in continuing operations, primarily related to costs associated with various legal proceedings and governmental reviews. During the nine months ended September 30, 2015 , we reduced a previously established reserve for a legal matter in discontinued operations by approximately $3 million based on updated claims information. |