Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies Commitments and Guarantees Our software license agreements include a performance guarantee that our software products will substantially operate as described in the applicable program documentation for a period of 365 days after delivery. To date, we have not incurred any significant costs associated with our performance guarantee or other related warranties and do not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties. Certain arrangements also include performance guarantees related to response time, availability for operational use, and other performance-related guarantees. Certain arrangements also include penalties in the form of maintenance credits should the performance of the software fail to meet the performance guarantees. To date, we have not incurred any significant costs associated with these warranties and do not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties. We have historically offered short-term rights of return in certain sales arrangements. If we are able to estimate returns for these types of arrangements and all other criteria for revenue recognition have been met, revenue is recognized and these arrangements are recorded in the consolidated financial statements. If we are unable to estimate returns for these types of arrangements, revenue is not recognized in the consolidated financial statements until the rights of return expire, provided also, that all other criteria of revenue recognition have been met. Our standard sales agreements contain an indemnification provision pursuant to which we shall indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with any United States patent, any copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third-party with respect to our software. As we have not incurred any significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements, we believe that our estimated exposure on these agreements is currently minimal. Accordingly, we have no liabilities recorded for these indemnification obligations. Hussein Litigation On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30-2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a former director and significant shareholder of our Company. We filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the Court granted on April 10, 2014. An amended complaint was filed on April 25, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance. The amended complaint seeks actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages and costs. We filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Court sustained the demurrer with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and overruled the demurrer with respect to the fraud and deceit claims. On August 28, 2014, we filed an answer and also filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff, alleging that the plaintiff breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company, Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki. Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki have dismissed their claims against Hussein, leaving QSI as the sole plaintiff in the cross-complaint. On June 26, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted on September 16, 2015, dismissing all claims against us. On September 23, 2015, the plaintiff filed an application for reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment order, which the Court denied. On October 28, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss our cross-complaint, which the Court denied on March 3, 2016. On May 9, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication, seeking to again dismiss our cross-complaint, which the Court denied on August 5, 2016. On August 5, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking to again dismiss our cross-complaint, which the Court denied on September 2, 2016. Trial is set for April 10, 2017 on QSI's cross-complaint. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim. Federal Securities Class Action On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by one of our shareholders. After the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the litigation described above under the caption “Hussein Litigation,” generally alleges that statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court denied on January 5, 2015. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief and we answered. Oral argument was held on December 5, 2016. The Court's decision remains pending. We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and continue to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our officers and current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a shareholder of ours. The complaint arises from the same allegations described above under the captions “Hussein Litigation” and “Federal Securities Class Action” and generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by our directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of all profits, court costs, attorneys’ fees and implementation of enhanced corporate governance procedures. The parties have agreed to stay this litigation until the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on the pending appeal described above under the caption “Federal Securities Class Action”. We believe that the plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim.

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

Commitments and Guarantees

Our software license agreements include a performance guarantee that our software products will substantially operate as described in the applicable program documentation for a period of 365 days after delivery. To date, we have not incurred any significant costs associated with our performance guarantee or other related warranties and do not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties. Certain arrangements also include performance guarantees related to response time, availability for operational use, and other performance-related guarantees. Certain arrangements also include penalties in the form of maintenance credits should the performance of the software fail to meet the performance guarantees. To date, we have not incurred any significant costs associated with these warranties and do not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties.

We have historically offered short-term rights of return in certain sales arrangements. If we are able to estimate returns for these types of arrangements and all other criteria for revenue recognition have been met, revenue is recognized and these arrangements are recorded in the consolidated financial statements. If we are unable to estimate returns for these types of arrangements, revenue is not recognized in the consolidated financial statements until the rights of return expire, provided also, that all other criteria of revenue recognition have been met.

Our standard sales agreements contain an indemnification provision pursuant to which we shall indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with any United States patent, any copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third-party with respect to our software. As we have not incurred any significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements, we believe that our estimated exposure on these agreements is currently minimal. Accordingly, we have no liabilities recorded for these indemnification obligations.

Hussein Litigation

On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30-2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a former director and significant shareholder of our Company. We filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the Court granted on April 10, 2014. An amended complaint was filed on April 25, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance. The amended complaint seeks actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages and costs. We filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Court sustained the demurrer with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and overruled the demurrer with respect to the fraud and deceit claims. On August 28, 2014, we filed an answer and also filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff, alleging that the plaintiff breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company, Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki. Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki have dismissed their claims against Hussein, leaving QSI as the sole plaintiff in the cross-complaint. On June 26, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted on September 16, 2015, dismissing all claims against us. On September 23, 2015, the plaintiff filed an application for reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment order, which the Court denied. On October 28, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss our cross-complaint, which the Court denied on March 3, 2016. On May 9, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication, seeking to again dismiss our cross-complaint, which the Court denied on August 5, 2016. On August 5, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking to again dismiss our cross-complaint, which the Court denied on September 2, 2016. Trial is set for April 10, 2017 on QSI's cross-complaint. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim.

Federal Securities Class Action

On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by one of our shareholders. After the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the litigation described above under the caption “Hussein Litigation,” generally alleges that statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court denied on January 5, 2015. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief and we answered. Oral argument was held on December 5, 2016. The Court's decision remains pending. We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and continue to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our officers and current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a shareholder of ours. The complaint arises from the same allegations described above under the captions “Hussein Litigation” and “Federal Securities Class Action” and generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by our directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of all profits, court costs, attorneys’ fees and implementation of enhanced corporate governance procedures. The parties have agreed to stay this litigation until the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on the pending appeal described above under the caption “Federal Securities Class Action”. We believe that the plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim.