Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	10. Contingencies In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business, we are currently subject to various legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully adjudicated, certain of which are discussed below. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters. No less than quarterly, we review the status of each significant matter and assess our potential financial exposure. We accrue a liability for an estimated loss if the potential loss from any legal proceeding or claim is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether the amount of an exposure is reasonably estimable, and accruals are based only on the information available to our management at the time the judgment is made. The outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, and we may incur substantial defense costs and expenses defending any of these matters. If one or more of these legal proceedings were resolved against us in a reporting period for amounts in excess of our management’s expectations, our consolidated financial statements for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected. Additionally, the resolution of a legal proceeding against us could prevent us from offering our products and services to current or prospective clients, which could further adversely affect our operating results. In the opinion of our management, based on the information currently available, there was not at least a reasonable possibility that we may have incurred any material loss, or any material loss in excess of a recorded accrual, with respect to the following matters. Our management will continue to evaluate the potential exposure related to these matters in future periods. On September 14, 2010, Pegasus Imaging Corporation filed a complaint against us in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, which we transferred to the Special Superior Court for Complex Business Cases. The lawsuit also named former officers Jeffrey Amrein and John Reinhart as defendants. The amended complaint added two defunct Florida corporations that did business with us, and asserted causes of action against defendants for fraudulent misrepresentations, negligent misrepresentations, and deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida law, allegedly arising from previous business dealings between the plaintiff and Advanced Imaging Concepts, Inc., a software company that we acquired in August 2003, and from our testing of a software development toolkit pursuant to a free trial license from the plaintiff in approximately 1999. On April 16, 2013, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint adding claims against us for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence. On June 27, 2013, we filed our First Amended Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims to the plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, denying all material allegations, and asserting counterclaims against the plaintiff for breach of two license agreements, breach of warranty, breach of a settlement and arbitration agreement, and three counts of negligent misrepresentation. On July 7, 2014, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim of unfair trade practices under Florida law and our motion for summary judgment as to the aforementioned defunct corporations, and granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on our counterclaims, for which the plaintiff has moved for reconsideration. A hearing to hear the plaintiff’s motions was held September 21 and 22, 2015, and we are awaiting a ruling. On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the recipients’ express permission or invitation in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the “TCPA”). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief. Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been scheduled. On July 11, 2012, RLIS, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our Enterprise EHR product (now Allscripts Touchworks) willfully infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,076,436. On September 28, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that certain of our products and services infringe both the foregoing patent as well as U.S. Patent No. 5,823,948. The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and interest, as well as injunctive relief. The case is currently stayed by order of the Court. On May 15, 2014, Medfusion, Inc. (“Medfusion”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina, against us. The complaint alleged, among other things, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraud, and violation of North Carolina’s unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive trade practices statutes by us in connection with a previous commercial agreement between the parties. On March 31, 2015, the court dismissed Medfusion’s fraud, fraudulent inducement, and unfair competition and unfair trade practices claims related to actions prior to the termination of the commercial agreement, and we subsequently brought a counterclaim for breach of contract. On October 29, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with Medfusion pursuant to which all claims and counterclaims were resolved, and, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, the parties will release each other of their respective claims and make a joint filing to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. Other Matters On May 2, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us; Glen Tullman, our former Chief Executive Officer; and William Davis, our former Chief Financial Officer, by the Bristol County Retirement System for itself and on behalf of a purported class consisting of stockholders who purchased our common stock between November 18, 2010 and April 26, 2012. In April 2015, the Court granted a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement in this lawsuit and on July 21, 2015, the Court approved the settlement and entered a final judgment binding on members of the class, minus stockholders who excluded themselves from the settlement, including certain entities affiliated with HealthCor Management, L.P. We do not believe we will incur a material loss in excess of a recorded accrual with respect to this matter.

10. Contingencies

In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business, we are currently subject to various legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully adjudicated, certain of which are discussed below. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters.

No less than quarterly, we review the status of each significant matter and assess our potential financial exposure. We accrue a liability for an estimated loss if the potential loss from any legal proceeding or claim is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether the amount of an exposure is reasonably estimable, and accruals are based only on the information available to our management at the time the judgment is made.

The outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, and we may incur substantial defense costs and expenses defending any of these matters. If one or more of these legal proceedings were resolved against us in a reporting period for amounts in excess of our management’s expectations, our consolidated financial statements for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected. Additionally, the resolution of a legal proceeding against us could prevent us from offering our products and services to current or prospective clients, which could further adversely affect our operating results.

In the opinion of our management, based on the information currently available, there was not at least a reasonable possibility that we may have incurred any material loss, or any material loss in excess of a recorded accrual, with respect to the following matters. Our management will continue to evaluate the potential exposure related to these matters in future periods.

On September 14, 2010, Pegasus Imaging Corporation filed a complaint against us in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, which we transferred to the Special Superior Court for Complex Business Cases. The lawsuit also named former officers Jeffrey Amrein and John Reinhart as defendants. The amended complaint added two defunct Florida corporations that did business with us, and asserted causes of action against defendants for fraudulent misrepresentations, negligent misrepresentations, and deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida law, allegedly arising from previous business dealings between the plaintiff and Advanced Imaging Concepts, Inc., a software company that we acquired in August 2003, and from our testing of a software development toolkit pursuant to a free trial license from the plaintiff in approximately 1999. On April 16, 2013, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint adding claims against us for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence. On June 27, 2013, we filed our First Amended Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims to the plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, denying all material allegations, and asserting counterclaims against the plaintiff for breach of two license agreements, breach of warranty, breach of a settlement and arbitration agreement, and three counts of negligent misrepresentation. On July 7, 2014, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim of unfair trade practices under Florida law and our motion for summary judgment as to the aforementioned defunct corporations, and granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on our counterclaims, for which the plaintiff has moved for reconsideration. A hearing to hear the plaintiff’s motions was held September 21 and 22, 2015, and we are awaiting a ruling.

On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the recipients’ express permission or invitation in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the “TCPA”). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief. Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been scheduled.

On July 11, 2012, RLIS, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our Enterprise EHR product (now Allscripts Touchworks) willfully infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,076,436. On September 28, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that certain of our products and services infringe both the foregoing patent as well as U.S. Patent No. 5,823,948. The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and interest, as well as injunctive relief. The case is currently stayed by order of the Court.

On May 15, 2014, Medfusion, Inc. (“Medfusion”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina, against us. The complaint alleged, among other things, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraud, and violation of North Carolina’s unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive trade practices statutes by us in connection with a previous commercial agreement between the parties. On March 31, 2015, the court dismissed Medfusion’s fraud, fraudulent inducement, and unfair competition and unfair trade practices claims related to actions prior to the termination of the commercial agreement, and we subsequently brought a counterclaim for breach of contract. On October 29, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with Medfusion pursuant to which all claims and counterclaims were resolved, and, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, the parties will release each other of their respective claims and make a joint filing to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.

Other Matters

On May 2, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us; Glen Tullman, our former Chief Executive Officer; and William Davis, our former Chief Financial Officer, by the Bristol County Retirement System for itself and on behalf of a purported class consisting of stockholders who purchased our common stock between November 18, 2010 and April 26, 2012. In April 2015, the Court granted a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement in this lawsuit and on July 21, 2015, the Court approved the settlement and entered a final judgment binding on members of the class, minus stockholders who excluded themselves from the settlement, including certain entities affiliated with HealthCor Management, L.P. We do not believe we will incur a material loss in excess of a recorded accrual with respect to this matter.