Legal Matters

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Legal Matters [Abstract]

Legal Matters

Note 13. Legal Matters

Litigation

In addition to the matters referenced in this Note 13, the Company is party to certain legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, including legal actions arising out of services rendered by its various operations, personal injury and employment disputes. Management does not expect that these other legal actions will have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company in which five former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim 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. The plaintiffs have alleged continuing violations of federal and state law and seek 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 is scheduled to close on August 28, 2012, and a 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 continue to seek class certification of allegedly similar employees and seek attorneys’ fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and two years under the North Carolina statute. Plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of a North Carolina state law class for NCWHA claims on January 20, 2012. The Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims under the NCWHA on March 22, 2012. These motions have been briefed in full by both parties and are currently awaiting the Court’s decision. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment with regard to the Company’s liability for plaintiffs’ FLSA claims on April 3, 2012. The Company moved for a continuance for its response to plaintiffs’ motion to provide time to obtain full discovery. On April 19, 2012, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion with leave to re-file and granted the Company’s motion for continuance.

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 alleges wage and hour violations under the FLSA and California law. The complaint alleges 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 alleges that California employees were subject to violations of state laws requiring meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements and timely payment of wages. The plaintiff seeks 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 parties held mediation discussions on August 3, 2011 and March 7, 2012. The parties have finalized the terms of a monetary settlement, and the Company has paid $5 million in escrow to settle all claims in the lawsuit, including the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs. The settlement is subject to court approval.

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, are the relators and allege 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 allege 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 seek 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 seek back pay plus interest and other damages because of defendants’ alleged retaliation against relators.

Odyssey filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against it on March 23, 2012. That motion is fully briefed and is pending before the court. Odyssey is also pursuing indemnification from Generations Healthcare and its owners, who are defendants in this action. Given the preliminary stage of this action, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this action on the business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company or Odyssey. Odyssey intends to defend itself vigorously in the action.

Odyssey Merger Litigation

Three putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with the Company’s acquisition (“Merger”) of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. (“Odyssey”). The first, entitled Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters’ Retirement System v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al., was filed on May 27, 2010 in the County Court, Dallas County, Texas. The second, entitled Eric Hemminger et al. v. Richard Burnham et al., was filed on June 9, 2010 in the District Court, Dallas, Texas. The third, entitled John O. Hansen v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al., was filed on July 2, 2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. All three lawsuits named the Company, GTO Acquisition Corp., Odyssey and the members of Odyssey’s board of directors as defendants. All three lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Odyssey, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of stockholders, alleging that Odyssey’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by failing to maximize shareholder value and that the Company and Odyssey aided and abetted the alleged breaches. On October 8, 2010, the District Court consolidated the Hemminger and Pompano Beach actions and transferred the Hemminger action to County Court No. 5 in Dallas County, Texas. On October 12, 2010, Gentiva entered a general denial with respect to the material allegations in both the Pompano Beach and Hemminger complaints. On December 16, 2010, defendants in the actions executed a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs reflecting an agreement in principle to settle each of the actions for additional disclosures which were included in Odyssey’s Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, filed on July 9, 2010. Defendants also agreed not to contest an application for attorneys’ fees not exceed $675,000 to be made by plaintiffs. On February 17, 2012, the court preliminarily approved a settlement of the Pompano Beach, Hemminger and Hansen actions. The settlement became final following court approval at a final settlement hearing on May 18, 2012.

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 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 and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel, 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 names Gentiva and certain current and former officers and directors as defendants, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, in connection with the Company’s participation in the HH PPS. The complaint alleges, 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.

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 names certain of Gentiva’s current and former directors as defendants, alleges, 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. That motion is fully briefed and is now pending before the Cobb County court.

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 names certain of Gentiva’s current and former directors and officers as defendants, alleges, 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. The complaint further alleges 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. That motion is fully briefed and is pending before the court.

Given the preliminary stage of the actions, the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from these actions 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 these actions at this time. The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in these actions.

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 currently under audit. 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 Company is unable to predict when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) will finalize all items relating to the 2000 cost reports.

Senate Finance Committee Report

In a letter dated May 12, 2010, the United States Senate Finance Committee requested information from the Company regarding its Medicare utilization rates for therapy visits. The letter was sent to all publicly traded home healthcare companies mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article that explored the relationship between the CMS’ home health policies and the utilization rates of some health agencies. The Company responded to this request as well as to supplemental requests for information. On October 3, 2011, the Senate Finance Committee released its report, which generally criticized certain of the home health therapy practices of publicly traded home healthcare companies, including the Company. The Company maintains its belief that it has provided and is providing the highest quality of care and has received and continues to receive payment within the standards set forth by the reimbursement system established by CMS. The Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this matter 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 matter at this time.

Subpoena

On July 13, 2010, the SEC informed the Company that the SEC had commenced an investigation relating to the Company’s participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System, and, on July 16, 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting certain documents in connection with its investigation. Similar to the Senate Finance Committee request, the SEC subpoena, among other things, focused on issues related to the number of and reimbursement received for therapy visits before and after changes in the Medicare reimbursement system, relationships with physicians, compliance efforts including compliance with fraud and abuse laws, and certain documents sent to the Senate Finance Committee. The Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this matter 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 matter at this time.

Investigations Involving Odyssey

On February 14, 2008, Odyssey received a letter from the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Texas Attorney General’s office notifying Odyssey that the Texas Attorney General was conducting an investigation concerning Medicaid hospice services provided by Odyssey, including its practices with respect to patient admission and retention, and requesting medical records of approximately 50 patients served by its programs in the State of Texas. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this investigation, the Texas Attorney General’s views of the issues being investigated or any actions that the Texas Attorney General may take.

On May 5, 2008, 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. 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. Based on the information that Odyssey has 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 October 28, 2011, the Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas notified Odyssey and the Company of the existence of a second qui tam lawsuit against VistaCare, doing business as VistaCare Hospice, Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., and Gentiva Healthcare Services, that had initially been filed on October 29, 2010, in the Northern District of Alabama, but transferred to the Northern District of Texas due to the similarity of allegations with the first qui tam lawsuit. A non-intervention order and unsealing of the second complaint was entered by the District Court for the Northern District of Texas on October 27, 2011. The Company believes this action should not be viewed as a final assessment by the DOJ of the merits of this qui tam action. On February 28, 2012, the court ordered a stay in this qui tam action until the court rules on the pending motion to dismiss in the first qui tam action. The court lifted the stay on July 23, 2012 following the court entry of an order ruling on the motion to dismiss in the first qui tam action. The Company anticipates that this second qui tam action will proceed in due course. VistaCare denies the allegations made in the second qui tam action and will vigorously defend against them. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this second qui tam lawsuit, the government’s continuing investigation, the DOJ’s views of the issues being investigated, other than the DOJ’s non-intervention in the qui tam action, or any actions that the DOJ may take.

On January 5, 2009, Odyssey received a letter from the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Control Unit notifying Odyssey that the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Unit was conducting an investigation concerning Medicaid hospice services provided by VistaCare from 2003 through 2007 and requesting certain documents. Odyssey is cooperating with the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Control Unit and has complied with the document request. Based on the limited information that Odyssey has at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigation, the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Control Unit’s views of the issues being investigated or any actions that the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Control Unit 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.

On February 2, 2009, Odyssey received a subpoena from the OIG requesting certain documents related to Odyssey’s provision of continuous care services from January 1, 2004 through January 22, 2009. Odyssey subsequently received two additional subpoenas from the OIG requesting medical records for certain patients who had been provided continuous care services by Odyssey during the same time period. On February 15, 2012, Odyssey entered into a settlement agreement with the United States, acting through the DOJ and on behalf of the OIG, regarding Odyssey’s provision of continuous care services prior to the Company’s acquisition of Odyssey in August 2010. Pursuant to the settlement agreement Odyssey paid the United States $25 million.