18. CONTINGENCIES

The Company is a party to various legal, regulatory and governmental proceedings incidental to its business. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending legal, regulatory and governmental matters, including the matters described herein, will have a material adverse effect on the condensed consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in pending legal, regulatory and governmental matters, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

With respect to all legal, regulatory and governmental proceedings, the Company considers the likelihood of a negative outcome. If the Company determines the likelihood of a negative outcome with respect to any such matter is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an accrual for the estimated loss for the expected outcome of the matter. If the likelihood of a negative outcome with respect to material matters is reasonably possible and the Company is able to determine an estimate of the possible loss or a range of loss, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Company discloses the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. However, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss in some instances based on the significant uncertainties involved in, and/or the preliminary nature of, certain legal, regulatory and governmental matters.

In connection with the spin-off of QHC, the Company agreed to indemnify QHC for certain liabilities relating to outcomes or events occurring prior to April 29, 2016, the closing date of the spin-off, including (i) certain claims and proceedings that were known to be outstanding at or prior to the consummation of the spin-off and involved multiple facilities and (ii) certain claims, proceedings and investigations by governmental authorities or private plaintiffs related to activities occurring at or related to QHC’s healthcare facilities prior to the closing date of the spin-off, but only to the extent, in the case of clause (ii), that such claims are covered by insurance policies maintained by the Company, including professional liability and employer practices. In this regard, the Company continues to be responsible for HMA Legal Matters (as defined below) covered by the CVR agreement that relate to QHC’s business, and any amounts payable by the Company in connection therewith will continue to reduce the amount payable by the Company in respect of the CVRs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company is not required to indemnify QHC in respect of any claims or proceedings arising out of or related to the business operations of Quorum Health Resources, LLC at any time or QHC’s compliance with the corporate integrity agreement. Subsequent to the spin-off of QHC, the Office of the Inspector General provided the Company with written assurance that it would look solely at QHC for compliance for its facilities under the Company’s Corporate Integrity Agreement; however, the Office of the Inspector General declined to enter into a separate corporate integrity agreement with QHC.

HMA Legal Matters and Related CVR

The CVR agreement entitles the holder to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $1.00 per CVR, subject to downward adjustment based on the final resolution of certain litigation, investigations (whether formal or informal, including subpoenas), or other actions or proceedings related to HMA or its affiliates existing on or prior to July 29, 2013 (the date of the Company’s merger agreement with HMA) as more specifically provided in the CVR agreement (all such matters are referred to as the “HMA Legal Matters”), which include, but are not limited to, investigation and litigation matters as previously disclosed by HMA in public filings with the SEC and/or as described in more detail below. The adjustment reducing the ultimate amount paid to holders of the CVR is determined based on the amount of losses incurred by the Company in connection with the HMA Legal Matters as more specifically provided in the CVR agreement, which generally includes the amount paid for damages, costs, fees and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and expenses), and all fines, penalties, settlement amounts, indemnification obligations and other liabilities (all such losses are referred to as “HMA Losses”). If the aggregate amount of HMA Losses exceeds a deductible of $18 million, then the amount payable in respect of each CVR shall be reduced (but not below zero) by an amount equal to the quotient obtained by dividing: (a) the product of (i) all losses in excess of the deductible and (ii) 90%; by (b) the number of CVRs outstanding on the date on which final resolution of the existing litigation occurs. There are 264,544,053 CVRs outstanding as of the date hereof. If total HMA Losses (including HMA Losses that have occurred to date as noted in the table below) exceed approximately $312 million, then the holders of the CVRs will not be entitled to any payment in respect of the CVRs.

The CVRs do not have a finite payment date. Any payments the Company makes under the CVR agreement will be payable within 60 days after the final resolution of the HMA Legal Matters. The CVRs are unsecured obligations of CHS and all payments under the CVRs will be subordinated in right of payment to the prior payment in full of all of the Company’s senior obligations (as defined in the CVR agreement), which include outstanding indebtedness of the Company (subject to certain exceptions set forth in the CVR agreement) and the HMA Losses. The CVR agreement permits the Company to acquire all or some of the CVRs, whether in open market transactions, private transactions or otherwise. As of September 30, 2017, the Company had acquired no CVRs.

The following table represents the impact of legal expenses paid or incurred and settlements paid or deemed final as of September 30, 2017 on the amounts owed to CVR holders (in millions):



			Allocation of Expenses and Settlements Paid
							Reduction to
	Total Expenses				Company's		Amount Owed
	and Settlement				Responsibility		to CVR Holders
	Cost		Deductible		at 10%		at 90%
As of December 31, 2016	$	62	$	18	$	4	$	40
Settlements paid		-		-		-		-
Legal expenses incurred
and/or paid during the
nine months ended
September 30, 2017		1		-		-		1
As of September 30, 2017	$	63	$	18	$	4	$	41

Amounts owed to CVR holders are dependent on the ultimate resolution of the HMA Legal Matters and determination of HMA Losses incurred. The settlement of any or all of the claims and expenses incurred on behalf of the Company in defending itself will (subject to the deductible) reduce the amounts owed to the CVR holders.

Underlying the CVR agreement are a number of claims included in the HMA Legal Matters asserted against HMA. The Company has recorded a liability in connection with those claims as part of the acquired assets and liabilities at the date of acquisition pursuant to the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 805 “Business Combinations.” For the estimate of the Company’s liabilities associated with the HMA Legal Matters that will be covered by the CVR and were not previously accrued by HMA, the Company recorded a liability of $284 million as part of the acquisition accounting for the HMA merger based on the Company’s estimate of fair value of such liabilities as of the date of acquisition. There was a $4 million increase in the liability during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and the estimated fair value of such liabilities, after consideration of amounts paid and current estimates of valuation inputs, was $256 million as of September 30, 2017, which is recorded in other long-term liabilities on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. As of September 30, 2017, there is currently no accrual recorded for the probable contingency claims underlying the CVR agreement. The estimated liability for probable contingency claims underlying the CVR agreement that was previously recorded by HMA, and reflected in the purchase accounting for HMA as an acquired liability has been settled and was paid during the year ended December 31, 2015. In addition, although legal fees are not included in the amounts currently accrued, such legal fees are taken into account in determining HMA Losses under the CVR agreement. Certain significant HMA Legal Matters underlying these liabilities are discussed in greater detail below.

HMA Matters Recorded at Fair Value

Medicare/Medicaid Billing Lawsuits

Beginning during the week of December 16, 2013, eleven qui tam lawsuits filed by private individuals against HMA were unsealed in various United States district courts. The United States has elected to intervene in all or part of eight of these matters; namely U.S. ex rel. Craig Brummer v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District Georgia) (“Brummer”); U.S. ex rel. Ralph D. Williams v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District Georgia) (“Williams”); U.S. ex rel. Scott H. Plantz, M.D. et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. (Northern District Illinois) (“Plantz”); U.S. ex rel. Thomas L. Mason, M.D. et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Western District North Carolina) (“Mason”); U.S. ex rel. Jacqueline Meyer, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc., Gary Newsome et al. (“Jacqueline Meyer”) (District of South Carolina); U.S. ex rel. George Miller, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (“Miller”); U.S. ex rel. Bradley Nurkin v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District of Florida) (“Nurkin”); and U.S. ex rel. Paul Meyer v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Southern District Florida) (“Paul Meyer”). The United States has elected to intervene with respect to allegations in these cases that certain HMA hospitals inappropriately admitted patients and then submitted reimbursement claims for treating those individuals to federal healthcare programs in violation of the False Claims Act or that certain HMA hospitals had inappropriate financial relationships with physicians which violated the Stark law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the False Claims Act. Certain of these complaints also allege the same actions violated various state laws which prohibit false claims. The United States has declined to intervene in three of the eleven matters, namely U.S. ex rel. Anita France, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Middle District Florida) (“France”) which involved allegations of wrongful billing and was settled; U.S. ex rel. Sandra Simmons v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Eastern District Oklahoma) (“Simmons”) which alleges unnecessary surgery by an employed physician and which was settled as to all allegations except alleged wrongful termination; and U.S. ex rel. David Napoliello, M.D. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Middle District Florida) (“Napoliello”) which alleges inappropriate admissions. On April 3, 2014, the Multi District Litigation Panel ordered the transfer and consolidation for pretrial proceedings of the eight intervened cases, plus the Napoliello matter, to the District of the District of Columbia under the name In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc. Qui Tam Litigation. On June 2, 2014, the court entered a stay of this matter until October 6, 2014, which was subsequently extended until February 27, 2015, May 27, 2015, September 25, 2015, January 25, 2016, May 25, 2016, September 26, 2016, December 27, 2016, April 27, 2017, August 28, 2017 and now until December 18, 2017. The Company intends to defend against the allegations in these matters, but also continues to cooperate with the government in the ongoing investigation of these allegations. The Company has been in discussions with the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) regarding the resolutions of these matters. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company was informed that the Criminal Division continues to investigate former executive-level employees of HMA, and continues to consider whether any HMA entities should be held criminally liable for the acts of the former HMA employees. The Company is voluntarily cooperating with these inquiries and has not been served with any subpoenas or other legal process.

Other Probable Contingencies

Becker v. Community Health Systems, Inc. d/b/a Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation d/b/a Community Health Systems d/b/a Community Health Systems PSC, Inc. d/b/a Rockwood Clinic P.S. and Rockwood Clinic, P.S. (Superior Court, Spokane, Washington). This suit was filed on February 29, 2012, by a former chief financial officer at Rockwood Clinic in Spokane, Washington. Becker claims he was wrongfully terminated for allegedly refusing to certify a budget for Rockwood Clinic in 2012. On February 29, 2012, he also filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration alleging that he is a whistleblower under Sarbanes-Oxley, which was dismissed by the agency and was appealed to an administrative law judge for a hearing that occurred on January 19-26, 2016. In a decision dated November 9, 2016, the law judge awarded Becker approximately $1.9 million for front pay, back pay and emotional damages with attorney fees to be later determined. The Company has appealed the award to the Administrative Review Board and is awaiting its decision. At a hearing on July 27, 2012, the trial court dismissed Community Health Systems, Inc. from the state case and subsequently certified the state case for an interlocutory appeal of the denial to dismiss his employer and the management company. The appellate court accepted the interlocutory appeal, and it was argued on April 30, 2014. On August 14, 2014, the court denied the Company’s appeal. On October 20, 2014, the Company filed a petition to review the denial with the Washington Supreme Court. The appeal was accepted and oral argument was heard on June 9, 2015. On September 15, 2015, the court denied the Company’s appeal and remanded to the trial court; a previous trial setting of September 12, 2016 has been vacated and not reset. The Company continues to vigorously defend these actions.

Summary of Recorded Amounts

The table below presents a reconciliation of the beginning and ending liability balances (in millions) during the nine months ended September 30, 2017, with respect to the Company’s fair value determination in connection with HMA Legal Matters that were not previously accrued by HMA, and the remaining contingencies of the Company in respect of which an accrual has been recorded. In addition, future legal fees (which are expensed as incurred) and costs related to possible indemnification and criminal investigation matters associated with the HMA Legal Matters have not been accrued or included in the table below. Furthermore, although not accrued, such costs, if incurred, will be taken into account in determining the total amount of reductions applied to the amounts owed to CVR holders.



	CVR-Related		Other
	Liability		Probable
	at Fair Value		Contingencies
Balance as of December 31, 2016	$	252	$	14
Expense		4		13
Cash payments		-		(14)
Balance as of September 30, 2017	$	256	$	13

With respect to the “Other Probable Contingencies” referenced in the chart above, in accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes a liability for litigation, regulatory and governmental matters for which, based on information currently available, the Company believes that a negative outcome is known or is probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. For all such matters (whether or not discussed in this contingencies footnote), such amounts have been recorded in other accrued liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet and are included in the table above in the “Other Probable Contingencies” column. Due to the uncertainties and difficulty in predicting the ultimate resolution of these contingencies, the actual amount could differ from the estimated amount reflected as a liability on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

In the aggregate, attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred but not included in the table above related to probable contingencies, and CVR-related contingencies accounted for at fair value, totaled $1 million for both the three-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, and $2 million for both the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, and are included in other operating expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of loss.

Matters for which an Outcome Cannot be Assessed

For the following legal matter, due to the uncertainties surrounding the ultimate outcome of the case, 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.

Class Action Shareholder Federal Securities Cases. Three purported class action 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., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company’s common stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs’ counsel. In lieu of ruling on the Company’s motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which was filed on October 5, 2015. The Company’s motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and oral argument was held on April 11, 2016. The Company’s motion to dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter is fully briefed, and oral argument was heard on May 3, 2017. The Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.

Other Matters

Shareholder Derivative Actions. Three purported shareholder derivative actions have also been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension Annuity Trust Fund v. Wayne T. Smith, et al., filed May 24, 2011; Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund v. Wayne T. Smith, et al., filed June 21, 2011; and Lambert Sweat v. Wayne T. Smith, et al., filed October 5, 2011. These three cases allege breach of fiduciary duty arising out of allegedly improper inpatient admission practices, mismanagement, waste and unjust enrichment. These cases have been consolidated into a single, consolidated action. The plaintiffs filed an operative amended derivative complaint in these three consolidated actions on March 15, 2012. The Company’s motion to dismiss was argued on June 13, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. This case was settled pursuant to a final order entered on January 17, 2017. As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a gain of approximately $40 million for the amount of settlement proceeds received, net of related legal expenses. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company is required to adopt and maintain for a specified period certain corporate governance measures. For more information, see the order and stipulation of settlement filed as Exhibit 99.2 to the 2016 Form 10-K.