Reasonably Possible Contingencies

For all of the legal matters below, the Company believes that a negative outcome is reasonably possible, but the Company is unable to determine an estimate of the possible loss or a range of loss.

On February 10, 2006, the Company received a letter from the Civil Division of the Department of Justice requesting documents in an investigation it was conducting involving the Company. The inquiry related to the way in which different state Medicaid programs apply to the federal government for matching or supplemental funds that are ultimately used to pay for a small portion of the services provided to Medicaid and indigent patients. These programs are referred to by different names, including “intergovernmental payments,” “upper payment limit programs,” and “Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments.” The February 2006 letter focused on the Company’s hospitals in three states: Arkansas, New Mexico, and South Carolina. On August 31, 2006, the Company received a follow up letter from the Department of Justice requesting additional documents relating to the programs in New Mexico and the payments to the Company’s three hospitals in that state. Through the beginning of 2009, the Company provided the Department of Justice with requested documents, met with its personnel on numerous occasions, and otherwise cooperated in its investigation. During the course of the investigation, the Civil Division notified the Company that it believed that the Company and its three New Mexico hospitals caused the State of New Mexico to submit improper claims for federal funds, in violation of the Federal False Claims Act. At one point, the Civil Division calculated that the three hospitals received ineligible federal participation payments from August 2000 to June 2006 of approximately $27.5 million and said that if it proceeded to trial, it would seek treble damages plus an appropriate penalty for each of the violations of the Federal False Claims Act. This investigation has culminated in the federal government’s intervention in a qui tam lawsuit styled U.S. ex rel. Baker vs. Community Health Systems, Inc., pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The federal government filed its complaint in intervention on June 30, 2009. The relator filed a second amended complaint on July 1, 2009. Both of these complaints expand the time period during which alleged improper payments were made. The Company filed motions to dismiss all of the federal government’s and the relator’s claims on August 28, 2009. On March 19, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss as to the relator’s complaint. On July 7, 2010, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the federal government’s complaint in intervention. On July 21, 2010, the Company filed its answer and pretrial discovery began. On June 2, 2011, the relator filed a Third Amended Complaint adding subsidiaries Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation and CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. as defendants. On June 6, 2011, the government filed its First Amended Complaint in intervention adding Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation as a defendant. Discovery is continuing. The discovery deadline is currently set for September 30, 2011, the deadline for filing of Motions for Summary Judgment is November 21, 2011 and there is currently no trial date set. The Company is vigorously defending this action.

On June 12, 2008, two of the Company’s hospitals received letters from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York requesting documents in an investigation it is conducting into billing practices with respect to kyphoplasty procedures performed during the period January 1, 2002, through June 9, 2008. On September 16, 2008, one of the Company’s hospitals in South Carolina also received an inquiry. Kyphoplasty is a surgical spine procedure that returns a compromised vertebrae (either from trauma or osteoporotic disease process) to its previous height, reducing or eliminating severe pain. The Company has been informed that similar investigations have been initiated at unaffiliated facilities in Alabama, South Carolina, Indiana and other states. The Company believes that this investigation is related to a qui tam settlement between the same U.S. Attorney’s office and the manufacturer and distributor of the Kyphon product, which is used in performing the kyphoplasty procedure. The Company is cooperating with the investigation by collecting and producing material responsive to the requests. The Company is continuing to evaluate and discuss this matter with the federal government.

Matters for which an Outcome Cannot be Assessed

For all of the legal matters below, the Company cannot at this time assess what the outcome may be and is further unable to determine any estimate of loss or range of loss. Because the allegations were made so recently and the investigations are at a very preliminary stage, there are not sufficient facts available to make these assessments.

On April 8, 2011, the Company received a document subpoena, dated March 31, 2011, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (the “OIG”), in connection with an investigation of possible improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid. The subpoena, issued from the OIG’s Chicago, Illinois office, requested documents from all of the Company’s hospitals and appears to concern emergency department processes and procedures, including the Company’s hospitals’ use of the Pro-MED Clinical Information System, which is a third-party software system that assists with the management of patient care and provides operational support and data collection for emergency department management and has the ability to track discharge, transfer and admission recommendations of emergency department physicians. The subpoena also requested other information about the Company’s relationships with emergency department physicians, including financial arrangements. The subpoena’s requests were very similar to those contained in the Civil Investigative Demands received by the Company’s Texas hospitals from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas on November 15, 2010. The Company is continuing to cooperate with the government in this investigation.

On April 11, 2011, Tenet Healthcare Corporation (“Tenet”) filed suit against the Company, Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The suit alleged the Company committed violations of certain federal securities laws by making certain statements in various proxy materials filed with the SEC in connection with the Company’s offer to purchase Tenet. Tenet alleged that the Company engaged in a practice to under-utilize observation status and over-utilize inpatient admission status and asserts that by doing so, the Company created undisclosed financial and legal liability to federal, state and private payors. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and Tenet’s costs. On April 19, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 28, 2011, the Company responded to the allegations during its earnings release conference call as discussed in the Company’s Form 8-K furnished on April 28, 2011. On May 16, 2011, Tenet filed an amended complaint. On June 29, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss is expected to occur in September 2011. The Company will continue to vigorously defend this suit.

On April 22, 2011, a joint motion was filed by the relator and the U.S. Department of Justice in the case styled United States ex rel. and Reuille vs. Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation and Lutheran Musculoskeletal Center, LLC d/b/a Lutheran Hospital, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal on January 7, 2009. The suit is brought under the False Claims Act and alleges that Lutheran Hospital of Indiana billed the Medicare program for (a) false 23 hour observation after outpatient surgeries and procedures, and (b) intentional assignment of inpatient status to one-day stays for cases that do not meet Medicare criteria for inpatient intensity of service or severity of illness. The relator had worked in the case management department of Lutheran Hospital of Indiana but was reassigned to another department in the fall of 2006. This facility was acquired by the Company as part of the July 25, 2007 merger transaction with Triad. The complaint also includes allegations of age discrimination in Ms. Reuille’s 2006 reassignment and retaliation in connection with her resignation on October 1, 2008. The Company had cooperated fully with the government in its investigation of this matter, but had been unaware of the exact nature of the allegations in the complaint. On December 27, 2010, the government filed a notice that it declined to intervene in this suit. The motion contained additional information about how the government intended to proceed with an investigation regarding “allegations of improper billing for inpatient care at other hospitals associated with Community Health Systems, Inc. . . . asserted in other qui tam complaints in other jurisdictions.” The motion stated that the Department of Justice has “consolidated its investigations” of the Company and other related entities and that “the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, multiple United States Attorneys’ offices, and the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (the “HHS”) are now closely coordinating their investigation of these overlapping allegations. The Attorney General of Texas has initiated an investigation; the United States intends to work cooperatively with Texas and any other States investigating these allegations.” The motion also stated that the Office of Audit Services for the Office of Investigations for HHS has been engaged to conduct a national audit of certain of the Company’s Medicare claims. The government confirmed that it considers the allegations made in the complaint styled Tenet Healthcare Corporation vs. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al. filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division on April 11, 2011 to be related to the allegations in the qui tam and to what the government is now describing as a consolidated investigation. Because qui tam suits are filed “under seal,” no one but the relator and the government knows that the suit has been filed or what allegations are being made by the relator on behalf of the government. Initially, the government has 60 days to make a determination about whether to intervene in a case and to act as the plaintiff or to decline to intervene and allow the relator to act as the plaintiff in the suit, but extensions of time are frequently granted to allow the government additional time to investigate the allegations. Even if, in the course of an investigation, the court partially unseals a complaint to allow the government and a defendant to work to a resolution of the complaint’s allegations, the defendant is prohibited from revealing to anyone even that the partial unsealing has occurred. As the investigation proceeds, the Company may learn of additional qui tam suits filed against the Company or its affiliated hospitals or related entities, or that contact letters, document requests, or medical record requests the Company has received in the past from various governmental agencies are generated from qui tam cases filed under seal. The motion filed on April 22, 2011 concluded by requesting a stay of the litigation in the Reuille case for 180 days, and on April 25, 2011, the court granted the motion. The Company’s management company subsidiary, Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, the defendant in the Reuille case, consented to the request for the stay. The Company is cooperating fully with the government in its investigations.

Three purported class action shareholder federal securities cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.