Legal Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters	ompany in which five former employees ("Plaintiffs") alleged wage and hour law violations. The former employees claimed they were paid pursuant to “an unlawful hybrid” compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and an hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to overtime pay. Plaintiffs alleged continuing violations of federal and state law and sought damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as under the New York Labor Law and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”). On October 8, 2010, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 13, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of the FLSA claims as a collective action. On May 26, 2011, the Court bifurcated the FLSA portion of the suit into a liability phase, in which discovery closed on January 15, 2013, and a potential damages phase, to be scheduled pending outcome of the liability phase. Following a motion for partial summary judgment by the Company regarding the New York state law claims, Plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss those claims in a filing on December 12, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of a North Carolina state law class for NCWHA claims on January 20, 2012. On August 29, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a North Carolina state law class. The Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims under the NCWHA on March 22, 2012, which the Court granted on January 16, 2013. On February 14, 2013, the Company filed two motions for partial summary judgment with regard to the Company's liability for Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment in their favor with regard to the Company's liability. On July 26, 2013, the Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment with regard to the Company's liability for Plaintiffs' FLSA claims and granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On November 4, 2013, the Court denied the Company's motion to amend the District Court's July 26 Order to certify two legal issues for immediate interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In its Order, the Court established a 30-day deadline for the Company to file its motion for decertification of the FLSA collective action class, which the Company then filed on December 4, 2013. If the District Court denies the Company's motion for decertification, the case will move into the damages phase of the litigation. If the District Court grants the Company's motion for decertification, the case will move into the damages phase of the litigation for the five named Plaintiffs only. While the parties continue to prepare to litigate the damages phase of the lawsuit and potential decertification of the collective action, the case remains conditionally certified with a class of approximately 1,000 allegedly similar employees seeking attorneys’ fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA. Based on the information the Company has at this time in the Rindfleisch lawsuit, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this proceeding on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for this lawsuit at this time. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit. On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the Company in which a former employee alleged wage and hour violations under the FLSA and California law. The complaint alleged that the Company paid some of its employees on both a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to overtime pay. The complaint further alleged that California employees were subject to violations of state laws requiring meal and rest breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements and timely payment of wages. The plaintiff sought class certification, attorneys’ fees, back wages, penalties and damages going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the state wage and hour claims. The Company denies the plaintiff's allegations but, following a March 2012 mediation, agreed to pay a total settlement amount of $5 million to settle the collective and class action claims. The federal district court granted final approval of the settlement on March 26, 2013, and funds were disbursed to the participating class members, 99 percent of whom timely negotiated their settlement checks. The unclaimed wages will escheat to the State of California, and any balance remaining will be distributed to a cy pres beneficiary at the conclusion of the escheat process. A status conference is scheduled for June 22, 2015, at which time the parties will present a final accounting of the settlement fund, and the court is expected to approve distribution of the residual to the cy pres beneficiary and dismiss the case. On December 29, 2011, Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. was served with a complaint captioned United States of America and the State of Illinois ex rel. Laurie Geschrey and Laurie Janus v. Generations Healthcare, LLC, Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., Narayan Ponakala and Catherine Ponakala , which was filed on April 19, 2010 as a qui tam action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 10 C 2413, under the provisions of the federal False Claims Act, the Illinois Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act and the Illinois Whistleblower Act. The plaintiffs, two former employees of Generations Healthcare, LLC, a hospice company whose assets were acquired by Odyssey on December 31, 2009, were the relators and alleged that defendants committed fraud against the United States and the State of Illinois by, among other things, recruiting and certifying patients as being eligible for hospice care when they were known not to be eligible and falsifying patients’ medical records in support of the claims for reimbursement. Relators further alleged that Odyssey was aware of Generations Healthcare’s alleged fraudulent business practices. Both the United States and the State of Illinois declined to intervene in the action, and the complaint was unsealed on December 1, 2011. Relators sought statutory damages, which are three times the amount of any actual damages suffered by the United States and the State of Illinois, the maximum statutory civil penalty due under the statutes plus all costs and attorneys fees. Additionally, relators sought back pay plus interest and other damages because of defendants’ alleged retaliation against relators. Odyssey sought indemnification from Generations Healthcare and its owners, who were defendants in this action. The action has been settled and all parties have signed a confidential settlement agreement. A stipulation of dismissal was filed on February 11, 2014, dismissing the case in its entirety, with prejudice. On July 10, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint captioned United States ex rel. Vicky White v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., which had been filed on September 8, 2010 as a qui tam action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee by a former employee, Vicky White, as relator. The United States had declined to intervene in this action on April 5, 2013. Relator seeks treble damages and civil penalties under the federal False Claims Act for alleged violations by the Company in presenting false claims for payment and receiving Medicare reimbursement for certain home health services it had provided and also seeks damages relating to her alleged retaliatory discharge by the Company. On September 6, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action in its entirety, which remains pending. Given the preliminary stage of this action and the limited information that the Company has regarding this matter, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this action. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit. Federal Securities Class Action Litigation Between November 2, 2010 and October 25, 2011, five shareholder class actions were filed against Gentiva and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Each of these actions asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") in connection with the Company’s participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System (“HH PPS”). Following consolidation of the actions and the appointment of Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff, on April 16, 2012, a consolidated shareholder class action complaint, captioned In re Gentiva Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, which named Gentiva and certain current and former officers and directors as defendants, asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"), in connection with the Company’s participation in the HH PPS. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company’s public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of Gentiva’s common stock during the period between July 31, 2008 and October 4, 2011. On June 15, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 25, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint in accordance with the court's rulings as set forth in its March 25 order. On May 10, 2013, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, and, on June 24, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On September 19, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a result of the court’s decision, the named current officers and directors were dismissed from the action, and certain claims against Gentiva and a former officer and a former officer/director remained. On October 3, 2013, the remaining defendants moved for partial reconsideration of the court’s September 19 order. On December 10, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the remaining defendants' motion for partial reconsideration. As a result of the court's decision, Gentiva and the former officer were dismissed from the action, and only a Section 10(b) claim against the former officer/director remains. On January 9, 2014, the former officer/director filed an answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint. On January 28, 2014, lead plaintiff filed a motion for the entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 3, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part lead plaintiff's motion under Rule 54(b), granting the motion to the extent lead plaintiff sought final judgment for the claims brought pursuant to the 1933 Act as to all defendants, and denying the motion to the extent lead plaintiff sought final judgment for the claims brought pursuant to the 1934 Act as to all defendants other than the former officer/director. As a result of the court's decision, on March 6, 2014, the court entered final judgment in favor of all defendants on lead plaintiff's claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act. Given the preliminary stage of the action, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from the action on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for the action at this time. The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in the action. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On January 4, 2011 and October 31, 2011, two actions were filed against certain of Gentiva’s current and former directors in Superior Court of DeKalb County in the State of Georgia, alleging, among other things, that Gentiva’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company. The actions were consolidated and, on February 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint (the “Georgia State Court Action”). The Georgia State Court Action, which named certain of Gentiva’s current and former directors as defendants, alleged, among other things, that Gentiva’s board of directors had actual or constructive knowledge that the Company’s public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the purpose of triggering higher reimbursement rates under HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of Gentiva’s common stock. On March 26, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Georgia State Court Action and further requested a transfer to the Superior Court of Cobb County. On October 12, 2012, the Cobb County court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint with prejudice. On November 30, 2012, one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia State Court Action made a demand on Gentiva's board of directors to take action to remedy the breaches of fiduciary duty alleged in the Georgia State Court Action. The board of directors formed a committee (the “Committee”) to consider the demand. On October 7 and October 13, 2011, two actions were filed against certain of Gentiva’s current and former directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging, among other things, that Gentiva’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company. The actions also asserted a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The actions were consolidated and, on March 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint (the “Georgia Federal Court Action”). The Georgia Federal Court Action, which named certain of Gentiva’s current and former directors and officers as defendants, alleged, among other things, that Gentiva’s board of directors had actual or constructive knowledge that the Company’s public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the purpose of triggering higher reimbursement rates under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of Gentiva’s common stock. The complaint further alleged that the Company’s Proxy Statement for its 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders was materially false and misleading. On April 16, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Georgia Federal Court Action and, on February 11, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. On March 11, 2013, one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia Federal Court Action filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On April 10, 2013, that plaintiff and defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice in the Eleventh Circuit. On April 30, 2013, that motion was granted. On August 2, 2013 and September 24, 2013, respectively, each of the plaintiffs in the Georgia Federal Court Action made a demand on Gentiva’s board of directors to take action to remedy the breaches of fiduciary duty alleged in the Georgia Federal Court Action. The demands were considered by the Committee along with the November 30, 2012 demand, and, after conducting an investigation of the allegations contained in each of the three demands, the Committee and the Board determined that taking any or all of the demanded actions would not serve the best interests of Gentiva and its shareholders. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to rejects the demands. Government Matters PRRB Appeal In connection with the audit of the Company’s 1997 cost reports, the Medicare fiscal intermediary made certain audit adjustments related to the methodology used by the Company to allocate a portion of its residual overhead costs. The Company filed cost reports for years subsequent to 1997 using the fiscal intermediary’s methodology. The Company believed the methodology it used to allocate such overhead costs was accurate and consistent with past practice accepted by the fiscal intermediary; as such, the Company filed appeals with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (“PRRB”) concerning this issue with respect to cost reports for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. The Company’s consolidated financial statements for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 had reflected use of the methodology mandated by the fiscal intermediary. In June 2003, the Company and its Medicare fiscal intermediary signed an Administrative Resolution relating to the issues covered by the appeals pending before the PRRB. Under the terms of the Administrative Resolution, the fiscal intermediary agreed to reopen and adjust the Company’s cost reports for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 using a modified version of the methodology used by the Company prior to 1997. This modified methodology will also be applied to cost reports for the year 2000, which are finalized and being settled. The Administrative Resolution required that the process to (i) reopen all 1997 cost reports, (ii) determine the adjustments to allowable costs through the issuance of Notices of Program Reimbursement and (iii) make appropriate payments to the Company, be completed in early 2004. Cost reports relating to years subsequent to 1997 were to be reopened after the process for the 1997 cost reports was completed. The fiscal intermediary completed the reopening of all 1997, 1998 and 1999 cost reports and determined that the adjustment to allowable costs aggregated $15.9 million which the Company has received and recorded as adjustments to net revenues in the fiscal years 2004 through 2006. The 2000 cost reports are now finalized and being settled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In connection with the settlements, the Company has recorded approximately $4.0 million as a positive adjustment to net revenues in 2013. Investigations Involving Odyssey On May 5, 2008, Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. (“Odyssey”) received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) notifying Odyssey that the DOJ was conducting an investigation of VistaCare, Inc. (“VistaCare”) and requesting that Odyssey provide certain information and documents related to the DOJ’s investigation of claims submitted by VistaCare to Medicare, Medicaid and the U.S. government health insurance plan for active military members, their families and retirees, formerly the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (“TRICARE”), from January 1, 2003 through March 6, 2008, the date Odyssey completed the acquisition of VistaCare. Odyssey has been informed by the DOJ and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Texas Attorney General’s Office that they are reviewing allegations that VistaCare may have billed the federal Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE programs for hospice services that were not reasonably or medically necessary or performed as claimed. The basis of the investigation is a qui tam lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas by a former employee of VistaCare. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that VistaCare submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid for hospice services that were not medically necessary and for hospice services that were referred in violation of the anti-kickback statute. The court unsealed the lawsuit on October 5, 2009 and Odyssey was served on January 28, 2010. In connection with the unsealing of the complaint, the DOJ filed a notice with the court declining to intervene in the qui tam action at such time. The Texas Attorney General also filed a notice of non-intervention with the court. These actions should not be viewed as a final assessment by the DOJ or the Texas Attorney General of the merits of this qui tam action. Odyssey continues to cooperate with the DOJ and the Texas Attorney General in their investigation. The relator has continued to pursue the qui tam lawsuit. Odyssey and VistaCare filed motions to dismiss the relator’s complaint on March 30, 2010 and April 2, 2012. The court issued orders on the motions to dismiss on March 9, 2011 and July 23, 2012. Consistent with the court’s orders, relator’s false claims act claims based on alleged medically unnecessary hospice services and for hospice services referred in violation of the anti-kickback statute are permitted to proceed to discovery. On or about September 6, 2013, relator filed her fourth amended complaint. This pleading only alleged wrongdoing against VistaCare from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2012 and did not allege any wrongdoing against Odyssey or the Company and only asserted claims against them as purported successors in interest. On or about September 27, 2013, VistaCare answered the fourth amended complaint, and the Company and Odyssey moved to dismiss the allegations made against them. That motion is pending before the court, and discovery is continuing. The case has been set for trial on September 21, 2015. VistaCare, Odyssey, and the Company deny the allegations made in this qui tam action and will vigorously defend against them. Based on the information available at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the qui tam lawsuit, the governments’ continuing investigation, the DOJ’s or Texas Attorney General’s views of the issues being investigated, other than the DOJ’s and Texas Attorney General’s notice declining to intervene in the qui tam action, or any actions that the DOJ or Texas Attorney General may take. On February 23, 2010, Odyssey received a subpoena from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), requesting various documents and certain patient records of one of Odyssey’s hospice programs relating to services performed from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009. Odyssey is cooperating with the OIG and has completed its subpoena production. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigation, the OIG’s views of the issues being investigated or any actions that the OIG may take. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time with regard to the above investigations involving Odyssey. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time regarding such investigations, the Company is unable to predict the impact, if any, that such investigations may have on Odyssey’s and the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.

ompany in which five former employees ("Plaintiffs") alleged wage and hour law violations. The former employees claimed they were paid pursuant to “an unlawful hybrid” compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and an hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to overtime pay. Plaintiffs alleged continuing violations of federal and state law and sought damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as under the New York Labor Law and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”). On October 8, 2010, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 13, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of the FLSA claims as a collective action. On May 26, 2011, the Court bifurcated the FLSA portion of the suit into a liability phase, in which discovery closed on January 15, 2013, and a potential damages phase, to be scheduled pending outcome of the liability phase. Following a motion for partial summary judgment by the Company regarding the New York state law claims, Plaintiffs agreed voluntarily to dismiss those claims in a filing on December 12, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of a North Carolina state law class for NCWHA claims on January 20, 2012. On August 29, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a North Carolina state law class. The Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims under the NCWHA on March 22, 2012, which the Court granted on January 16, 2013. On February 14, 2013, the Company filed two motions for partial summary judgment with regard to the Company's liability for Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment in their favor with regard to the Company's liability. On July 26, 2013, the Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment with regard to the Company's liability for Plaintiffs' FLSA claims and granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On November 4, 2013, the Court denied the Company's motion to amend the District Court's July 26 Order to certify two legal issues for immediate interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In its Order, the Court established a 30-day deadline for the Company to file its motion for decertification of the FLSA collective action class, which the Company then filed on December 4, 2013. If the District Court denies the Company's motion for decertification, the case will move into the damages phase of the litigation. If the District Court grants the Company's motion for decertification, the case will move into the damages phase of the litigation for the five named Plaintiffs only. While the parties continue to prepare to litigate the damages phase of the lawsuit and potential decertification of the collective action, the case remains conditionally certified with a class of approximately 1,000 allegedly similar employees seeking attorneys’ fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA.

Based on the information the Company has at this time in the Rindfleisch lawsuit, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this proceeding on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for this lawsuit at this time. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the Company in which a former employee alleged wage and hour violations under the FLSA and California law. The complaint alleged that the Company paid some of its employees on both a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them to overtime pay. The complaint further alleged that California employees were subject to violations of state laws requiring meal and rest breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements and timely payment of wages. The plaintiff sought class certification, attorneys’ fees, back wages, penalties and damages going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the state wage and hour claims. The Company denies the plaintiff's allegations but, following a March 2012 mediation, agreed to pay a total settlement amount of $5 million to settle the collective and class action claims. The federal district court granted final approval of the settlement on March 26, 2013, and funds were disbursed to the participating class members, 99 percent of whom timely negotiated their settlement checks. The unclaimed wages will escheat to the State of California, and any balance remaining will be distributed to a cy pres beneficiary at the conclusion of the escheat process. A status conference is scheduled for June 22, 2015, at which time the parties will present a final accounting of the settlement fund, and the court is expected to approve distribution of the residual to the cy pres beneficiary and dismiss the case.

On December 29, 2011, Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. was served with a complaint captioned United States of America and the State of Illinois ex rel. Laurie Geschrey and Laurie Janus v. Generations Healthcare, LLC, Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., Narayan Ponakala and Catherine Ponakala , which was filed on April 19, 2010 as a qui tam action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 10 C 2413, under the provisions of the federal False Claims Act, the Illinois Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act and the Illinois Whistleblower Act. The plaintiffs, two former employees of Generations Healthcare, LLC, a hospice company whose assets were acquired by Odyssey on December 31, 2009, were the relators and alleged that defendants committed fraud against the United States and the State of Illinois by, among other things, recruiting and certifying patients as being eligible for hospice care when they were known not to be eligible and falsifying patients’ medical records in support of the claims for reimbursement. Relators further alleged that Odyssey was aware of Generations Healthcare’s alleged fraudulent business practices. Both the United States and the State of Illinois declined to intervene in the action, and the complaint was unsealed on December 1, 2011. Relators sought statutory damages, which are three times the amount of any actual damages suffered by the United States and the State of Illinois, the maximum statutory civil penalty due under the statutes plus all costs and attorneys fees. Additionally, relators sought back pay plus interest and other damages because of defendants’ alleged retaliation against relators. Odyssey sought indemnification from Generations Healthcare and its owners, who were defendants in this action. The action has been settled and all parties have signed a confidential settlement agreement. A stipulation of dismissal was filed on February 11, 2014, dismissing the case in its entirety, with prejudice.

On July 10, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint captioned United States ex rel. Vicky White v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., which had been filed on September 8, 2010 as a qui tam action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee by a former employee, Vicky White, as relator. The United States had declined to intervene in this action on April 5, 2013. Relator seeks treble damages and civil penalties under the federal False Claims Act for alleged violations by the Company in presenting false claims for payment and receiving Medicare reimbursement for certain home health services it had provided and also seeks damages relating to her alleged retaliatory discharge by the Company. On September 6, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action in its entirety, which remains pending. Given the preliminary stage of this action and the limited information that the Company has regarding this matter, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this action. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit.

Federal Securities Class Action Litigation

Between November 2, 2010 and October 25, 2011, five shareholder class actions were filed against Gentiva and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Each of these actions asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") in connection with the Company’s participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System (“HH PPS”). Following consolidation of the actions and the appointment of Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff, on April 16, 2012, a consolidated shareholder class action complaint, captioned In re Gentiva Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, which named Gentiva and certain current and former officers and directors as defendants, asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"), in connection with the Company’s participation in the HH PPS. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company’s public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of Gentiva’s common stock during the period between July 31, 2008 and October 4, 2011. On June 15, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 25, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint in accordance with the court's rulings as set forth in its March 25 order. On May 10, 2013, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, and, on June 24, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On September 19, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a result of the court’s decision, the named current officers and directors were dismissed from the action, and certain claims against Gentiva and a former officer and a former officer/director remained. On October 3, 2013, the remaining defendants moved for partial reconsideration of the court’s September 19 order. On December 10, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the remaining defendants' motion for partial reconsideration. As a result of the court's decision, Gentiva and the former officer were dismissed from the action, and only a Section 10(b) claim against the former officer/director remains. On January 9, 2014, the former officer/director filed an answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint. On January 28, 2014, lead plaintiff filed a motion for the entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 3, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part lead plaintiff's motion under Rule 54(b), granting the motion to the extent lead plaintiff sought final judgment for the claims brought pursuant to the 1933 Act as to all defendants, and denying the motion to the extent lead plaintiff sought final judgment for the claims brought pursuant to the 1934 Act as to all defendants other than the former officer/director. As a result of the court's decision, on March 6, 2014, the court entered final judgment in favor of all defendants on lead plaintiff's claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act.

Given the preliminary stage of the action, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from the action on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for the action at this time. The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in the action.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On January 4, 2011 and October 31, 2011, two actions were filed against certain of Gentiva’s current and former directors in Superior Court of DeKalb County in the State of Georgia, alleging, among other things, that Gentiva’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company. The actions were consolidated and, on February 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint (the “Georgia State Court Action”). The Georgia State Court Action, which named certain of Gentiva’s current and former directors as defendants, alleged, among other things, that Gentiva’s board of directors had actual or constructive knowledge that the Company’s public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the purpose of triggering higher reimbursement rates under HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of Gentiva’s common stock. On March 26, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Georgia State Court Action and further requested a transfer to the Superior Court of Cobb County. On October 12, 2012, the Cobb County court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint with prejudice. On November 30, 2012, one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia State Court Action made a demand on Gentiva's board of directors to take action to remedy the breaches of fiduciary duty alleged in the Georgia State Court Action. The board of directors formed a committee (the “Committee”) to consider the demand.

On October 7 and October 13, 2011, two actions were filed against certain of Gentiva’s current and former directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging, among other things, that Gentiva’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company. The actions also asserted a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The actions were consolidated and, on March 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint (the “Georgia Federal Court Action”). The Georgia Federal Court Action, which named certain of Gentiva’s current and former directors and officers as defendants, alleged, among other things, that Gentiva’s board of directors had actual or constructive knowledge that the Company’s public disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the purpose of triggering higher reimbursement rates under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the price of Gentiva’s common stock. The complaint further alleged that the Company’s Proxy Statement for its 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders was materially false and misleading. On April 16, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Georgia Federal Court Action and, on February 11, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. On March 11, 2013, one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia Federal Court Action filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On April 10, 2013, that plaintiff and defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice in the Eleventh Circuit. On April 30, 2013, that motion was granted. On August 2, 2013 and September 24, 2013, respectively, each of the plaintiffs in the Georgia Federal Court Action made a demand on Gentiva’s board of directors to take action to remedy the breaches of fiduciary duty alleged in the Georgia Federal Court Action. The demands were considered by the Committee along with the November 30, 2012 demand, and, after conducting an investigation of the allegations contained in each of the three demands, the Committee and the Board determined that taking any or all of the demanded actions would not serve the best interests of Gentiva and its shareholders. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously to rejects the demands.

Government Matters

PRRB Appeal

In connection with the audit of the Company’s 1997 cost reports, the Medicare fiscal intermediary made certain audit adjustments related to the methodology used by the Company to allocate a portion of its residual overhead costs. The Company filed cost reports for years subsequent to 1997 using the fiscal intermediary’s methodology. The Company believed the methodology it used to allocate such overhead costs was accurate and consistent with past practice accepted by the fiscal intermediary; as such, the Company filed appeals with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (“PRRB”) concerning this issue with respect to cost reports for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. The Company’s consolidated financial statements for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 had reflected use of the methodology mandated by the fiscal intermediary. In June 2003, the Company and its Medicare fiscal intermediary signed an Administrative Resolution relating to the issues covered by the appeals pending before the PRRB. Under the terms of the Administrative Resolution, the fiscal intermediary agreed to reopen and adjust the Company’s cost reports for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 using a modified version of the methodology used by the Company prior to 1997. This modified methodology will also be applied to cost reports for the year 2000, which are finalized and being settled. The Administrative Resolution required that the process to (i) reopen all 1997 cost reports, (ii) determine the adjustments to allowable costs through the issuance of Notices of Program Reimbursement and (iii) make appropriate payments to the Company, be completed in early 2004. Cost reports relating to years subsequent to 1997 were to be reopened after the process for the 1997 cost reports was completed.

The fiscal intermediary completed the reopening of all 1997, 1998 and 1999 cost reports and determined that the adjustment to allowable costs aggregated $15.9 million which the Company has received and recorded as adjustments to net revenues in the fiscal years 2004 through 2006. The 2000 cost reports are now finalized and being settled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In connection with the settlements, the Company has recorded approximately $4.0 million as a positive adjustment to net revenues in 2013.

Investigations Involving Odyssey

On May 5, 2008, Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. (“Odyssey”) received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) notifying Odyssey that the DOJ was conducting an investigation of VistaCare, Inc. (“VistaCare”) and requesting that Odyssey provide certain information and documents related to the DOJ’s investigation of claims submitted by VistaCare to Medicare, Medicaid and the U.S. government health insurance plan for active military members, their families and retirees, formerly the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (“TRICARE”), from January 1, 2003 through March 6, 2008, the date Odyssey completed the acquisition of VistaCare. Odyssey has been informed by the DOJ and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Texas Attorney General’s Office that they are reviewing allegations that VistaCare may have billed the federal Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE programs for hospice services that were not reasonably or medically necessary or performed as claimed. The basis of the investigation is a qui tam lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas by a former employee of VistaCare. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that VistaCare submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid for hospice services that were not medically necessary and for hospice services that were referred in violation of the anti-kickback statute. The court unsealed the lawsuit on October 5, 2009 and Odyssey was served on January 28, 2010. In connection with the unsealing of the complaint, the DOJ filed a notice with the court declining to intervene in the qui tam action at such time. The Texas Attorney General also filed a notice of non-intervention with the court. These actions should not be viewed as a final assessment by the DOJ or the Texas Attorney General of the merits of this qui tam action. Odyssey continues to cooperate with the DOJ and the Texas Attorney General in their investigation. The relator has continued to pursue the qui tam lawsuit. Odyssey and VistaCare filed motions to dismiss the relator’s complaint on March 30, 2010 and April 2, 2012. The court issued orders on the motions to dismiss on March 9, 2011 and July 23, 2012. Consistent with the court’s orders, relator’s false claims act claims based on alleged medically unnecessary hospice services and for hospice services referred in violation of the anti-kickback statute are permitted to proceed to discovery. On or about September 6, 2013, relator filed her fourth amended complaint. This pleading only alleged wrongdoing against VistaCare from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2012 and did not allege any wrongdoing against Odyssey or the Company and only asserted claims against them as purported successors in interest. On or about September 27, 2013, VistaCare answered the fourth amended complaint, and the Company and Odyssey moved to dismiss the allegations made against them. That motion is pending before the court, and discovery is continuing. The case has been set for trial on September 21, 2015. VistaCare, Odyssey, and the Company deny the allegations made in this qui tam action and will vigorously defend against them. Based on the information available at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the qui tam lawsuit, the governments’ continuing investigation, the DOJ’s or Texas Attorney General’s views of the issues being investigated, other than the DOJ’s and Texas Attorney General’s notice declining to intervene in the qui tam action, or any actions that the DOJ or Texas Attorney General may take.

On February 23, 2010, Odyssey received a subpoena from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), requesting various documents and certain patient records of one of Odyssey’s hospice programs relating to services performed from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009. Odyssey is cooperating with the OIG and has completed its subpoena production. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigation, the OIG’s views of the issues being investigated or any actions that the OIG may take.

The Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time with regard to the above investigations involving Odyssey. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time regarding such investigations, the Company is unable to predict the impact, if any, that such investigations may have on Odyssey’s and the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.