15. 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 Quorum Health Corporation (“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. 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.

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. On October 15, 2019, the Administrative Review Board released an order to show cause requiring Becker to file a brief to show cause why the Administrative Review Board should not remand the previous administrative decision for a new hearing before a new law judge. The Company continues to vigorously defend these actions.

Empire Health Foundation v. CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., CHS Washington Holdings, LLC, Spokane Washington Hospital Company, LLC, Spokane Valley Washington Hospital Company, LLC. This suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on June 12, 2017 by Empire Health Foundation claiming Deaconess and Valley Hospitals failed to abide by charity care obligations allegedly existing in the 2008 Asset Purchase Agreement between Empire Health System and Company affiliates. The court granted in part and denied in part the hospitals’ motion to dismiss on October 11, 2017. All parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the court granted in part and denied in part both parties’ motions on February 27, 2019 and July 9, 2019. The Company settled this matter during the three months ended September 30, 2019. The Company recorded a liability of $22 million at September 30, 2019 based on the settlement of this matter.

The table below presents a reconciliation of the beginning and ending liability balances (in millions) during the nine months ended September 30, 2019, with respect to the Company’s determination of the contingencies of the Company in respect of which an accrual has been recorded.

Summary of Recorded Amounts


	Probable
	Contingencies
Balance as of December 31, 2018	$	19
Expense		26
Reserve for insured claim		(3)
Cash payments		(5)
Balance as of September 30, 2019	$	37

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. 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, totaled $7 million and less than $1 million for the three month ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively, and $11 million and $2 million for the nine month ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively, 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 was heard on May 3, 2017. On December 13, 2017, the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case and remanded it to the District Court. The Company filed a renewed partial motion to dismiss on February 9, 2018, which was denied by the District Court on September 24, 2018. The Company also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision. The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 1, 2018. The District Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification on July 26, 2019. The Company filed a petition for permission to appeal the District Court’s class certification order in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 9, 2019, and that petition was denied on October 23, 2019. Trial for this matter is set for December 1, 2020. The Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.