Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation (including those described in more detail below), arising in the ordinary course of business. Some of these actions involve claims that are substantial in amount. These matters include, but are not limited to, intellectual property disputes; commercial and contract disputes; professional liability claims; employee-related matters; and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies, Medicare or Medicaid payers and MCOs reviewing billing practices or requesting comment on allegations of billing irregularities that are brought to their attention through billing audits or third parties. The Company receives civil investigative demands or other inquiries from various governmental bodies in the ordinary course of its business. Such inquiries can relate to the Company or other parties, including physicians and other health care providers. The Company works cooperatively to respond to appropriate requests for information. The Company also is named from time to time in suits brought under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and comparable state laws. These suits typically allege that the Company has made false statements and/or certifications in connection with claims for payment from U.S. federal or state healthcare programs. The suits may remain under seal (hence, unknown to the Company) for some time while the government decides whether to intervene on behalf of the qui tam plaintiff. Such claims are an inevitable part of doing business in the healthcare field today. The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all statutes, regulations, and other requirements applicable to its commercial laboratory operations and drug development support services. The healthcare diagnostics and drug development industries are, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of the applicable statutes and regulations. Therefore, the applicable statutes and regulations could be interpreted or applied by a prosecutorial, regulatory, or judicial authority in a manner that would adversely affect the Company. Potential sanctions for violation of these statutes and regulations include significant civil and criminal penalties, fines, the loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations, additional liabilities from third-party claims, and/or exclusion from participation in government programs. Many of the current claims and legal actions against the Company are in preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company records an aggregate legal reserve, which is determined using calculations based on historical loss rates and assessment of trends experienced in settlements and defense costs. In accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 450 “Contingencies,” the Company establishes reserves for judicial, regulatory, and arbitration matters outside the aggregate legal reserve if and when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable and would exceed the aggregate legal reserve. When loss contingencies are not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish separate reserves. The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably probable loss for the proceedings described in more detail below in which damages either have not been specified or, in the Company's judgment, are unsupported and/or exaggerated and (i) the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (iv) there are novel legal issues to be presented. For these proceedings, however, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. As previously reported, the Company responded to an October 2007 subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General's regional office in New York. On August 17, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit, United States of America ex rel. NPT Associates v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings , which alleges that the Company offered UnitedHealthcare kickbacks in the form of discounts in return for Medicare business. The Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company's billing practices violated the False Claims Acts of 14 states and the District of Columbia. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. Neither the U.S. government nor any state government has intervened in the lawsuit. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in October 2014 and Plaintiff was granted the right to replead. On January 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint under seal and to vacate the briefing schedule for the Company's Motion to Dismiss, while the government reviews the amended complaint. The Court granted the motion and vacated the briefing dates. Plaintiff then filed the Amended Complaint under seal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. In addition, the Company has received various other subpoenas since 2007 related to Medicaid billing. In October 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Michigan Department of Attorney General seeking documents related to its billing to Michigan Medicaid. The Company cooperated with this request. In October 2013, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the State of Texas Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Texas Medicaid. The Company cooperated with this request. On October 5, 2018, the Company received a second Civil Investigative Demand from the State of Texas Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Texas Medicaid. The Company is cooperating with this request. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On October 16, 2019, the Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit Court’s dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the lawsuit. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. In December 2014, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand issued pursuant to the U.S. False Claims Act from the U.S. Attorney's Office for South Carolina, which requested information regarding alleged remuneration and services provided by the Company to physicians who also received draw and processing/handling fees from competitor laboratories Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. (HDL) and Singulex, Inc. (Singulex). The Company cooperated with the request. On April 4, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Beaufort Division, unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit, United States of America ex rel. Scarlett Lutz, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings , which alleges that the Company's financial relationships with referring physicians violate federal and state anti-kickback statutes. The Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company conspired with HDL and Singulex in violation of the Federal False Claims Act and the California and Illinois insurance fraud prevention acts by facilitating HDL's and Singulex's offers of illegal inducements to physicians and the referral of patients to HDL and Singulex for laboratory testing. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. Neither the U.S. government nor any state government has intervened in the lawsuit. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking the dismissal of the claims asserted under the California and Illinois insurance fraud prevention statutes, the conspiracy claim, the reverse False Claims Act claim, and all claims based on the theory that the Company performed medically unnecessary testing. On January 16, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims based on the theory that the Company performed medically unnecessary testing, the claims asserted under the California and Illinois insurance fraud prevention statutes, and the reverse False Claims Act claim. The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss as to the conspiracy claim. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom) between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM , Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al ., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al ., No. 16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al. , No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al. , No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al. , No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the acquisition transaction. The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its board of directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, the Asiatrade action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig. , Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action. On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel. The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated. The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 24, 2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which remains pending. On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the action in its entirety pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated decision in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian . On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently granted. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings , filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings , was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions. On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations. On August 16, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On December 20, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al ., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to properly pay commissions to employees under a sales incentive compensation plan upon their termination of employment. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, punitive damages, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. On January 22, 2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On February 27, 2020, the court entered an order dismissing the class action claims, and the parties settled the remaining individual claim. On April 1, 2019, Covance Research Products was served with a Grand Jury Subpoena issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Miami, Florida requiring the production of documents related to the importation into the United States of live non-human primate shipments originating from or transiting through China, Cambodia, and/or Vietnam from April 1, 2014 through March 28, 2019. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ. On April 22, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Kawa Orthodontics LLP, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et al. , filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 6, 2019, the defendants violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and at least 40 other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 28, 2019. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which contains additional allegations, including allegations related to another facsimile. On December 16, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a notice withdrawing its Motion for Class Certification and all class allegations in the Amended Complaint. In January 2020, the parties settled the lawsuit. On May 14, 2019, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), an external collection agency, notified the Company about a security incident AMCA experienced that may have involved certain personal information about some of the Company’s patients (the AMCA Incident). The Company referred patient balances to AMCA only when direct collection efforts were unsuccessful. The Company’s systems were not impacted by the AMCA Incident. Upon learning of the AMCA Incident, the Company promptly stopped sending new collection requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from continuing to work on any pending collection requests from the Company. AMCA informed the Company that it appeared that an unauthorized user had access to AMCA’s system between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019, and that AMCA could not rule out the possibility that personal information on AMCA’s system was at risk during that time period. Information on AMCA’s affected system from the Company may have included name, address, and balance information for the patient and person responsible for payment, along with the patient’s phone number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service. The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance information may have been included for some individuals, and because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number for some individuals may also have been affected. No ordered tests, laboratory test results, or diagnostic information from the Company were in the AMCA affected system. The Company notified individuals for whom it had a valid mailing address. For the individuals whose Social Security Number was affected, the notice included an offer to enroll in credit monitoring and identity protection services that will be provided free of charge for 24 months. Twenty-three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company related to the AMCA Incident in various U.S. District Courts. Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against other health care providers who used AMCA. These lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey. On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. On January 22, 2020, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss all claims. The consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the Company did not adequately protect its patients’ data and failed to timely notify those patients of the AMCA Incident. The Complaint asserts various causes of action, including but not limited to negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and the violation of state data protection statutes. The Complaint seeks damages on behalf of a class of all affected Company customers. The Company will vigorously defend the multi-district litigation. The Company was served with a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Raymond Eugenio, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Lance Berberian, et al. , filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on April 23, 2020. The complaint asserts derivative claims on the Company’s behalf against the Company’s board of directors and certain executive officers. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to ensure that the Company utilized proper cybersecurity safeguards and failed to implement a sufficient response to data security incidents, including the AMCA Incident. The complaint asserts derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks relief including damages, certain disclosures, and certain changes to the Company’s internal governance practices. The lawsuit will be vigorously defended. Certain governmental entities have requested information from the Company related to the AMCA Incident. The Company received a request for information from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services. On April 28, 2020, OCR notified the Company of the closure of its inquiry. The Company has also received requests from a mutil-state group of state Attorneys General and is cooperating with these requests for information. Three putative class action lawsuits related to California wage and hour laws have been served on the Company. On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al ., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On June 10, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Ignacio v. Laboratory Corporation of America , filed in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On July 1, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Jan v. Laboratory Corporation of America , filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. All three cases were subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and then consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings. In the lawsuits, Plaintiffs allege that employees were not properly paid overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal and rest break premiums, did not receive compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages upon termination of employment. The Plaintiffs assert these actions violate various California Labor Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice under California law. The lawsuits seek monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits. On July 30, 2019, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit, Mitchell v. Covance, Inc. et al. , filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleges that certain individuals employed by Covance Inc. and Chiltern International Inc. were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and were thereby not properly paid overtime compensation. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 3, 2020, the Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a putative class action. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On January 31, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings , filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that visually impaired patients are unable to use the Company's touchscreen kiosks at Company patient service centers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar California statutes. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On April 20, 2020, a former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit, Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central District, alleging that certain non-exempt California-based employees were not properly compensated for driving time or properly paid wages upon termination of employment. The Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California Labor Code provisions and Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Under the Company's present insurance programs, coverage is obtained for catastrophic exposure as well as those risks required to be insured by law or contract. The Company is responsible for the uninsured portion of losses related primarily to general, professional and vehicle liability, certain medical costs and workers' compensation. The self-insured retentions are on a per-occurrence basis without any aggregate annual limit. Provisions for losses expected under these programs are recorded based upon the Company's estimates of the aggregated liability of claims incurred. |