COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company has a line of credit with a financial institution totaling $85 million for the issuance of letters of credit (the “Letter of Credit Line”). The Letter of Credit Line, which is renewed annually, matures on November 18, 2013. In support of its risk management program, to ensure the Company’s performance or payment to third parties, $60 million in letters of credit were outstanding at March 31, 2013. The letters of credit primarily represent collateral for current and future automobile liability and workers’ compensation loss payments. Contingent Lease Obligations The Company is subject to contingent obligations under certain leases and other instruments incurred in connection with real estate activities and other operations associated with LabOne, Inc., which the Company acquired in 2005, and certain of its predecessor companies. No liability has been recorded for any of these potential contingent obligations. See Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the Company’s 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K for further details. Other Legal Matters The Company is involved in various legal proceedings. Some of the proceedings against the Company involve claims that could be substantial in amount. In addition to the matters described below, in the normal course of business, we have been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with our activities as a provider of diagnostic testing, information and services. These legal actions may include lawsuits alleging negligence or other similar legal claims. These actions could involve claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages, and could have an adverse impact on our client base and reputation. We are also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings by governmental agencies regarding our business, including, among other matters, operational matters, which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. The number of these reviews, investigations and proceedings has increased in recent years with regard to many firms in the healthcare services industry, including our Company. In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York partially unsealed a civil complaint, U.S. ex rel. Fair Laboratory Practices Associates v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, filed against the Company under the whistleblower provisions of the federal False Claims Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act in connection with the Company's pricing of laboratory services. The complaint seeks damages for alleged false claims associated with laboratory tests reimbursed by government payers, treble damages and civil penalties. In March 2011, the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the relators' complaint and disqualified the relators and their counsel from pursuing an action based on the facts alleged in the complaint; the relators filed a notice of appeal. In July 2011, the government filed a notice declining to intervene in the action and the Court entered a final judgment in the Company's favor. The relators' appeal is pending. In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against the Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages. The defendants removed the complaint to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds claims under ERISA. The Company filed a motion seeking to limit the application of the NJLAD to only those members of the purported class who worked in New Jersey and to dismiss the individual defendants. The motion was granted. The only remaining NJLAD claim is that of the named plaintiff; the ERISA claim remains in the case. Both parties have filed summary judgment motions. The defendants' motion was granted in part and denied in part and the plaintiff's motion was denied. In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Celera Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding a financial restatement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were made. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. The parties are engaged in discovery. In August 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia seeking various business records, including records related to the Company's compliance program, certain marketing materials, certain product offerings, and test ordering and other policies. The Company is cooperating with the request. In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed by the defendants from February 17, 2010 to the present. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against these female sales representatives on account of their gender, in violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the complaint, to strike the class allegations and to compel arbitration with the named plaintiffs. In September 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the Michigan Attorney General's Office seeking documents relating to the Company's pricing and billing practices as they relate to Michigan's Medicaid program. The Company cooperated with the requests. In January 2012, the State of Michigan intervened as a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit, Michigan ex rel. Hunter Laboratories LLC v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., filed in Michigan Superior Court. The suit, originally filed by a competitor laboratory, alleges that the Company overcharged Michigan's Medicaid program. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. In March 2011, prior to the Company's acquisition of Celera, several putative class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Celera against the Company, Celera, and the directors of Celera in the Court of Chancery of Delaware and in California. The suits allege that Celera's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company's proposed acquisition of Celera, and that the Company aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The parties reached a settlement, and the Court of Chancery of Delaware certified a settlement class and approved the settlement over the objection of a Celera shareholder, BVF Partners L.P. (“BVF”). Plaintiffs in two substantively similar lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California were not party to the settlement agreement but the claims of those plaintiffs were released pursuant to Court of Chancery's order. On appeal of the Court of Chancery's decision, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the certification of the settlement class and approval of the settlement, but determined that BVF should have been afforded the right to “opt out” of the settlement and pursue its claims. The case has been remanded to the Court of Chancery for further proceedings. In July 2012, a putative class action entitled Mt. Lookout Chiropractic Center Inc. v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. ("Mt. Lookout") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, two of its subsidiaries and others. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending fax advertisements without permission and without the required opt-out notice, and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. In addition, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries have received subpoenas from state agencies. The Company and the subsidiaries continue responding to subpoenas from state agencies in two states and are cooperating with their requests. The federal or state governments may bring claims based on new theories as to the Company's practices which management believes to be in compliance with law. In addition, certain federal and state statutes, including the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act, allow private individuals to bring lawsuits against healthcare companies on behalf of government or private payers. The Company is aware of certain pending individual or class action lawsuits, and has received several subpoenas, related to billing practices filed under the qui tam provisions of the Civil False Claims Act and/or other federal and state statutes, regulations or other laws. The Company understands that there may be other pending qui tam claims brought by former employees or other "whistle blowers" as to which the Company cannot determine the extent of any potential liability. Management cannot predict the outcome of such matters. Although management does not anticipate that the ultimate outcome of such matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, given the high degree of judgment involved in establishing loss estimates related to these types of matters, the outcome of such matters may be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which the impact of such matters is determined or paid. These matters are in different stages. Some of these matters are in their early stages. Matters may involve responding to and cooperating with various government investigations and related subpoenas. As of March 31, 2013, the Company believes that there are no losses related to the Other Legal Matters described above that are probable, or, if a loss is probable, it cannot be reasonably estimated. While the Company believes that a reasonable possibility exists that losses may have been incurred related to the Other Legal Matters described above, based on the nature and status of these matters, potential losses, if any, cannot be estimated. Reserves for Legal Matters Reserves for legal matters, unrelated to those described in "Other Legal Matters", totaled less than $5 million at both March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012. Reserves for General and Professional Liability Claims As a general matter, providers of clinical testing services may be subject to lawsuits alleging negligence or other similar legal claims. These suits could involve claims for substantial damages. Any professional liability litigation could also have an adverse impact on the Company's client base and reputation. The Company maintains various liability insurance coverages for, among other things, claims that could result from providing, or failing to provide, clinical testing services, including inaccurate testing results, and other exposures. The Company's insurance coverage limits its maximum exposure on individual claims; however, the Company is essentially self-insured for a significant portion of these claims. Reserves for such matters, including those associated with both asserted and incurred but not reported claims, are established by considering actuarially determined losses based upon the Company's historical and projected loss experience. Such reserves totaled approximately $113 million and $110 million as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Management believes that established reserves and present insurance coverage are sufficient to cover currently estimated exposures. Management cannot predict the outcome of any claims made against the Company. Although management does not anticipate that the ultimate outcome of any such proceedings or claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, given the high degree of judgment involved in establishing accruals for loss estimates related to these types of matters, the outcome may be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which the impact of such claims is determined or paid.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company has a line of credit with a financial institution totaling $85 million for the issuance of letters of credit (the “Letter of Credit Line”). The Letter of Credit Line, which is renewed annually, matures on November 18, 2013.

In support of its risk management program, to ensure the Company’s performance or payment to third parties, $60 million in letters of credit were outstanding at March 31, 2013. The letters of credit primarily represent collateral for current and future automobile liability and workers’ compensation loss payments.

Contingent Lease Obligations

The Company is subject to contingent obligations under certain leases and other instruments incurred in connection with real estate activities and other operations associated with LabOne, Inc., which the Company acquired in 2005, and certain of its predecessor companies. No liability has been recorded for any of these potential contingent obligations. See Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the Company’s 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K for further details.

Other Legal Matters

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings. Some of the proceedings against the Company involve claims that could be substantial in amount.

In addition to the matters described below, in the normal course of business, we have been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with our activities as a provider of diagnostic testing, information and services. These legal actions may include lawsuits alleging negligence or other similar legal claims. These actions could involve claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages, and could have an adverse impact on our client base and reputation.

We are also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings by governmental agencies regarding our business, including, among other matters, operational matters, which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. The number of these reviews, investigations and proceedings has increased in recent years with regard to many firms in the healthcare services industry, including our Company.

In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York partially unsealed a civil complaint, U.S. ex rel. Fair Laboratory Practices Associates v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, filed against the Company under the whistleblower provisions of the federal False Claims Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act in connection with the Company's pricing of laboratory services. The complaint seeks damages for alleged false claims associated with laboratory tests reimbursed by government payers, treble damages and civil penalties. In March 2011, the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the relators' complaint and disqualified the relators and their counsel from pursuing an action based on the facts alleged in the complaint; the relators filed a notice of appeal. In July 2011, the government filed a notice declining to intervene in the action and the Court entered a final judgment in the Company's favor. The relators' appeal is pending.

In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against the Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages. The defendants removed the complaint to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds claims under ERISA. The Company filed a motion seeking to limit the application of the NJLAD to only those members of the purported class who worked in New Jersey and to dismiss the individual defendants. The motion was granted. The only remaining NJLAD claim is that of the named plaintiff; the ERISA claim remains in the case. Both parties have filed summary judgment motions. The defendants' motion was granted in part and denied in part and the plaintiff's motion was denied.

In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Celera Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding a financial restatement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were made. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. The parties are engaged in discovery.

In August 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia seeking various business records, including records related to the Company's compliance program, certain marketing materials, certain product offerings, and test ordering and other policies. The Company is cooperating with the request.

In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed by the defendants from February 17, 2010 to the present. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against these female sales representatives on account of their gender, in violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the complaint, to strike the class allegations and to compel arbitration with the named plaintiffs.

In September 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the Michigan Attorney General's Office seeking documents relating to the Company's pricing and billing practices as they relate to Michigan's Medicaid program. The Company cooperated with the requests. In January 2012, the State of Michigan intervened as a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit, Michigan ex rel. Hunter Laboratories LLC v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., filed in Michigan Superior Court. The suit, originally filed by a competitor laboratory, alleges that the Company overcharged Michigan's Medicaid program. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

In March 2011, prior to the Company's acquisition of Celera, several putative class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Celera against the Company, Celera, and the directors of Celera in the Court of Chancery of Delaware and in California. The suits allege that Celera's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company's proposed acquisition of Celera, and that the Company aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The parties reached a settlement, and the Court of Chancery of Delaware certified a settlement class and approved the settlement over the objection of a Celera shareholder, BVF Partners L.P. (“BVF”). Plaintiffs in two substantively similar lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California were not party to the settlement agreement but the claims of those plaintiffs were released pursuant to Court of Chancery's order. On appeal of the Court of Chancery's decision, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the certification of the settlement class and approval of the settlement, but determined that BVF should have been afforded the right to “opt out” of the settlement and pursue its claims. The case has been remanded to the Court of Chancery for further proceedings.

In July 2012, a putative class action entitled Mt. Lookout Chiropractic Center Inc. v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. ("Mt. Lookout") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, two of its subsidiaries and others. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending fax advertisements without permission and without the required opt-out notice, and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

In addition, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries have received subpoenas from state agencies. The Company and the subsidiaries continue responding to subpoenas from state agencies in two states and are cooperating with their requests.

The federal or state governments may bring claims based on new theories as to the Company's practices which management believes to be in compliance with law. In addition, certain federal and state statutes, including the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act, allow private individuals to bring lawsuits against healthcare companies on behalf of government or private payers. The Company is aware of certain pending individual or class action lawsuits, and has received several subpoenas, related to billing practices filed under the qui tam provisions of the Civil False Claims Act and/or other federal and state statutes, regulations or other laws. The Company understands that there may be other pending qui tam claims brought by former employees or other "whistle blowers" as to which the Company cannot determine the extent of any potential liability.

Management cannot predict the outcome of such matters. Although management does not anticipate that the ultimate outcome of such matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, given the high degree of judgment involved in establishing loss estimates related to these types of matters, the outcome of such matters may be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which the impact of such matters is determined or paid.

These matters are in different stages. Some of these matters are in their early stages. Matters may involve responding to and cooperating with various government investigations and related subpoenas. As of March 31, 2013, the Company believes that there are no losses related to the Other Legal Matters described above that are probable, or, if a loss is probable, it cannot be reasonably estimated. While the Company believes that a reasonable possibility exists that losses may have been incurred related to the Other Legal Matters described above, based on the nature and status of these matters, potential losses, if any, cannot be estimated.

Reserves for Legal Matters

Reserves for legal matters, unrelated to those described in "Other Legal Matters", totaled less than $5 million at both March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012.

Reserves for General and Professional Liability Claims

As a general matter, providers of clinical testing services may be subject to lawsuits alleging negligence or other similar legal claims. These suits could involve claims for substantial damages. Any professional liability litigation could also have an adverse impact on the Company's client base and reputation. The Company maintains various liability insurance coverages for, among other things, claims that could result from providing, or failing to provide, clinical testing services, including inaccurate testing results, and other exposures. The Company's insurance coverage limits its maximum exposure on individual claims; however, the Company is essentially self-insured for a significant portion of these claims. Reserves for such matters, including those associated with both asserted and incurred but not reported claims, are established by considering actuarially determined losses based upon the Company's historical and projected loss experience. Such reserves totaled approximately $113 million and $110 million as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Management believes that established reserves and present insurance coverage are sufficient to cover currently estimated exposures. Management cannot predict the outcome of any claims made against the Company. Although management does not anticipate that the ultimate outcome of any such proceedings or claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, given the high degree of judgment involved in establishing accruals for loss estimates related to these types of matters, the outcome may be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which the impact of such claims is determined or paid.