Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	11. Contingencies We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry. As a result, various lawsuits, claims, and legal and regulatory proceedings have been and can be expected to be instituted or asserted against us. The resolution of any such lawsuits, claims, or legal and regulatory proceedings could materially and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows in a given period. Derivative Litigation— All lawsuits purporting to be derivative complaints filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama since 2002 have been consolidated and stayed in favor of the first-filed action captioned Tucker v. Scrushy and filed August 28, 2002. Derivative lawsuits in other jurisdictions have been stayed. The Tucker complaint named as defendants a number of our former officers and directors. Tucker also asserted claims on our behalf against Ernst & Young and various UBS entities, as well as against MedCenterDirect.com, Capstone Capital Corporation, now known as HR Acquisition I Corp., and G.G. Enterprises. When originally filed, the primary allegations in the Tucker case involved self-dealing by Mr. Scrushy and other insiders through transactions with various entities allegedly controlled by Mr. Scrushy. The complaint was amended four times to add additional defendants and include claims of accounting fraud, improper Medicare billing practices, and additional self-dealing transactions. The Tucker derivative litigation, including a $2.9 billion judgment against Mr. Scrushy, and the related settlements to date are more fully described in “Litigation By and Against Richard M. Scrushy” below and Note 21, Settlements, “UBS Litigation Settlement,” and Note 22, Contingencies and Other Commitments, to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2010 Form 10-K. The settlements with UBS Securities and other defendants do not release our claims against any non-settling defendants in the Tucker litigation, or against our former independent auditor, Ernst & Young, which remain pending in arbitration. The Tucker derivative claims against Ernst & Young and other defendants listed above remain pending and have moved through fact discovery on an expedited schedule that was coordinated with the federal securities claims by our former stockholders and bondholders against Mr. Scrushy, Ernst & Young, and UBS. We are no longer a party in the federal securities claims action described in Note 21, Settlements, “Securities Litigation Settlement,” to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2010 Form 10-K by our former stockholders and bondholders against Mr. Scrushy, Ernst & Young, and UBS and are not a party to or beneficiary of any settlements between the plaintiffs and the remaining defendants. Litigation By and Against Richard M. Scrushy— On December 9, 2005, Mr. Scrushy filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Scrushy v. HealthSouth. The complaint alleged that, as a result of Mr. Scrushy’s removal from the position of chief executive officer in March 2003, we owed him “in excess of $70 million” pursuant to an employment agreement dated as of September 17, 2002. On December 28, 2005, we counterclaimed against Mr. Scrushy, asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud arising out of Mr. Scrushy’s tenure with us, and seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, and disgorgement of wrongfully obtained benefits. We also asserted that any employment agreements with Mr. Scrushy should be void and unenforceable. On July 7, 2009, we filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims by Mr. Scrushy based upon the Tucker court’s June 18, 2009 ruling that Mr. Scrushy’s employment agreements are void and rescinded. We understand that the court does not intend to rule on this motion at the present time. On June 18, 2009, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama ruled on our derivative claims against Mr. Scrushy presented during a non-jury trial held May 11 to May 26, 2009. The court held Mr. Scrushy responsible for fraud and breach of fiduciary duties and awarded us $2.9 billion in damages. On July 24, 2009, Mr. Scrushy filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s decision, and the parties subsequently submitted their briefs to the Supreme Court of Alabama. On January 28, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision in its entirety. On April 15, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court denied Mr. Scrushy’s application for a rehearing of the Supreme Court’s initial decision. On July 12, 2011, Mr. Scrushy, appearing pro se, filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of certain aspects of the trial court proceedings and judgment against him. Included in his petition were objections to the derivative nature of the case, the size of the award, and the fact he was only present in the courtroom during portions of the trial when he was being examined. We cannot predict when or how the Supreme Court will rule on this motion, nor can we, at this time, predict when and to what extent this judgment can be collected. We will pursue collection aggressively and to the fullest extent permitted by law. We, in coordination with derivative plaintiffs’ counsel, are attempting to locate, in order to collect the judgment, Mr. Scrushy’s current assets and other assets we believe were improperly disposed. Part of this effort is a fraudulent transfer complaint filed on July 2, 2009 against Mr. Scrushy and a number of related entities by derivative plaintiffs for the benefit of HealthSouth in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Tucker v. Scrushy et al. While these collection efforts continue, some of Mr. Scrushy’s assets have been seized and sold at auction pursuant to the state law procedure for collection of a judgment. Other assets will likewise be sold from time to time. On May 3, 2011, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County entered an order for an initial distribution to HealthSouth. After reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by HealthSouth and the attorneys for the derivative shareholder plaintiffs for property maintenance of and fees incurred to locate Mr. Scrushy’s assets and after recording a liability for the federal plaintiffs’ 25% apportionment of any net recovery from Mr. Scrushy as required under the Consolidated Securities Action settlement, we recorded a $10.6 million net gain in Government, class action, and related settlements in our condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 in connection with this initial cash distribution. We are obligated to pay 35% of any recovery from Mr. Scrushy along with reasonable out-of-pocket expenses to the attorneys for the derivative shareholder plaintiffs. In connection with those obligations, in April 2011, $4.4 million of the amounts previously collected were distributed to attorneys for the derivative shareholder plaintiffs. We recorded this cash distribution as part of Professional fees— accounting, tax, and legal in our condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. Litigation By and Against Former Independent Auditor— In March 2003, claims on behalf of HealthSouth were brought in the Tucker derivative litigation against Ernst & Young, alleging that from 1996 through 2002, when Ernst & Young served as our independent auditor, Ernst & Young acted recklessly and with gross negligence in performing its duties, and specifically that Ernst & Young failed to perform reviews and audits of our financial statements with due professional care as required by law and by its contractual agreements with us. The claims further allege Ernst & Young either knew of or, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered and investigated the fraudulent and improper accounting practices being directed by certain officers and employees, and should have reported them to our board of directors and the audit committee. The claims seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of fees received from us by Ernst & Young, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 18, 2005, Ernst & Young filed a lawsuit captioned Ernst & Young LLP v. HealthSouth Corp. in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. The complaint alleges we provided Ernst & Young with fraudulent management representation letters, financial statements, invoices, bank reconciliations, and journal entries in an effort to conceal accounting fraud. Ernst & Young claims that as a result of our actions, Ernst & Young’s reputation has been injured and it has and will incur damages, expenses, and legal fees. On April 1, 2005, we answered Ernst & Young’s claims and asserted counterclaims related or identical to those asserted in the Tucker action. Upon Ernst & Young’s motion, the Alabama state court referred Ernst & Young’s claims and our counterclaims to arbitration pursuant to a clause in the engagement agreements between HealthSouth and Ernst & Young. On July 12, 2006, we and the derivative plaintiffs filed an arbitration demand on behalf of HealthSouth against Ernst & Young. On August 7, 2006, Ernst & Young filed an answering statement and counterclaim in the arbitration reasserting the claims made in state court. In August 2006, we and the derivative plaintiffs agreed to jointly prosecute the claims against Ernst & Young in arbitration. We are vigorously pursuing our claims against Ernst & Young and defending the claims against us. The three-person arbitration panel that is adjudicating the claims and counterclaims in arbitration was selected under rules of the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”). The trial phase of the arbitration process began on July 12, 2010 and is continuing as schedules permit. However, pursuant to an order of the AAA panel, all aspects of the arbitration are confidential. Accordingly, we will not discuss the arbitration until there is a resolution. Based on the stage of arbitration, and review of the current facts and circumstances, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility of a loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this case. General Medicine Action— On August 16, 2004, General Medicine, P.C. filed a lawsuit against us captioned General Medicine, P.C. v. HealthSouth Corp. seeking the recovery of allegedly fraudulent transfers involving assets of Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation, a former subsidiary of HealthSouth. The lawsuit is pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama (the “Alabama Action”). The underlying claim against Horizon/CMS originates from a services contract entered into in 1995 between General Medicine and Horizon/CMS whereby General Medicine agreed to provide medical director services to skilled nursing facilities owned by Horizon/CMS for a term of three years. Horizon/CMS terminated the agreement six months after it was executed, and General Medicine then initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1996 (the “Michigan Action”). General Medicine’s complaint in the Michigan Action alleged that Horizon/CMS breached the services contract by wrongfully terminating General Medicine. We acquired Horizon/CMS in 1997 and sold it to Meadowbrook Healthcare, Inc. in 2001 pursuant to a stock purchase agreement. In 2004, Meadowbrook consented to the entry of a final judgment in the Michigan Action in the amount of $376 million (the “Consent Judgment”) in favor of General Medicine against Horizon/CMS for the alleged wrongful termination of the contract with General Medicine. We were not a party to the Michigan Action or the settlement negotiated by Meadowbrook. The complaint filed by General Medicine against us in the Alabama Action alleged that while Horizon/CMS was our wholly owned subsidiary and General Medicine was an existing creditor of Horizon/CMS, we caused Horizon/CMS to transfer its assets to us for less than a reasonably equivalent value or, in the alternative, with the actual intent to defraud creditors of Horizon/CMS, including General Medicine, in violation of the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. General Medicine also alleged in its amended complaint that as Horizon’s parent we failed to observe corporate formalities in its operation and ownership of Horizon, misused its control of Horizon, stripped assets from Horizon, and engaged in other conduct which amounted to a fraud on Horizon’s creditors, including General Medicine. General Medicine has requested relief including recovery of the unpaid amount of the Consent Judgment, the avoidance of the subject transfers of assets, attachment of the assets transferred to us, appointment of a receiver over the transferred properties, and a monetary judgment for the value of properties transferred. In the Alabama Action, we have denied liability to General Medicine and asserted counterclaims against for fraud, injurious falsehood, tortious interference with business relations, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, abuse of process, and other causes of action. In our counterclaims, we alleged the Consent Judgment is the product of fraud, collusion and bad faith by General Medicine and Meadowbrook and, further, that these parties were guilty of a conspiracy to manufacture a lawsuit against HealthSouth in favor of General Medicine. The Alabama Action is presently stayed subject to the outcome of the pending appeal in the Michigan Action discussed below. In the Michigan Action, we filed a motion asking the court to set aside the Consent Judgment on grounds that it was the product of fraud on the court and collusion by the parties. On May 21, 2009, the court granted our motion to set aside the Consent Judgment on grounds that it was the product of fraud on the court. On February 25, 2010, the court ruled that no further proceedings were necessary in the Michigan Action. On March 9, 2010, General Medicine filed an appeal of the court’s decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal now has been fully briefed by the parties, but oral argument has not yet been scheduled. At this time, we do not know when the Court of Appeals will rule on the appeal. The Alabama Action, the Michigan Action, and the Consent Judgment are described in more detail in Note 22, Contingencies and Other Commitments, to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2010 Form 10-K. Although both the Michigan Action and the Alabama Action remain pending and it is not possible to predict the outcome of either case, we do not believe, based on the stage of litigation, prior rulings in our favor, and review of the current facts and circumstances, there is a reasonable possibility of a loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against General Medicine’s claims and to vigorously prosecute our counterclaims against General Medicine. Other Litigation— We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs alleged that we, some of our former officers, and our former auditor engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing filed on December 22, 2010. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on the stage of litigation and review of the current facts and circumstances, it is not possible to estimate with confidence the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this case. We were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 3, 2009 by an individual in the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, South Carolina, captioned Sulton v. HealthSouth Corp, et al. The plaintiff alleged that certain treatment he received at a HealthSouth facility complicated a pre-existing infectious injury. The plaintiff sought recovery for pain and suffering, medical expenses, punitive damages, and other damages. On July 30, 2010, the jury in this case returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $12.3 million in damages. On May 2, 2011, we filed our brief in the appeal of this verdict with the South Carolina Court of Appeals, and the plaintiff’s response brief is due to be filed with the court in August 2011. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. We believe the attending nurses acted both responsibly and professionally, and we will continue to support and defend them. Although we continue to believe in the merit of our defenses and counterarguments, we have recorded a liability of $12.3 million in Accrued expenses and other current liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 with a corresponding receivable of $7.7 million in Other current assets for the portion of the claim we expect to be covered through our excess insurance coverages, resulting in a net charge of $4.6 million to Other operating expenses in the second quarter of 2010. The $4.6 million portion of this claim would be a covered claim through our captive insurance subsidiary, HCS, Ltd. As a result of the verdict, during the third quarter of 2010, we made a $6.0 million payment through HCS, Ltd. to the Richland County Clerk as a deposit during the on-going appeal process. The deposit is a restricted asset included in Other current assets in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Other Matters— The False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. § 287, allows private citizens, called “relators,” to institute civil proceedings alleging violations of the False Claims Act. These qui tam cases are generally sealed by the court at the time of filing. The only parties privy to the information contained in the complaint are the relator, the federal government, and the presiding court. It is possible that qui tam lawsuits have been filed against us and that we are unaware of such filings or have been ordered by the presiding court not to discuss or disclose the filing of such lawsuits. We may be subject to liability under one or more undisclosed qui tam cases brought pursuant to the False Claims Act. It is our obligation as a participant in Medicare and other federal healthcare programs to routinely conduct audits and reviews of the accuracy of our billing systems and other regulatory compliance matters. As a result of these reviews, we have made, and will continue to make, disclosures to the Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (the “HHS-OIG”) relating to amounts we suspect represent over-payments from these programs, whether due to inaccurate billing or otherwise. Some of these disclosures have resulted in, or may result in, HealthSouth refunding amounts to Medicare or other federal healthcare programs. See Note 21, Settlements, “The 2007 Referral Source Settlement,” to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2010 Form 10-K. On June 24, 2011, we received a document subpoena addressed to the Houston LTCH from the HHS-OIG. The subpoena is in connection with an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and requests documents and materials relating to the Houston LTCH’s patient admissions, length of stay, and discharge matters. We are cooperating fully with the HHS-OIG in connection with this subpoena and are currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of this investigation. See also Note 7, Assets Held for Sale and Results of Discontinued Operations. We also face certain financial risks and challenges relating to our 2007 divestiture transactions (see Note 18, Assets Held for Sale and Results of Discontinued Operations, to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2010 Form 10-K) following their closing. These include indemnification obligations, which in the aggregate could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Litigation By and Against Richard M. Scrushy—

On December 9, 2005, Mr. Scrushy filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Scrushy v. HealthSouth. The complaint alleged that, as a result of Mr. Scrushy’s removal from the position of chief executive officer in March 2003, we owed him “in excess of $70 million” pursuant to an employment agreement dated as of September 17, 2002. On December 28, 2005, we counterclaimed against Mr. Scrushy, asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud arising out of Mr. Scrushy’s tenure with us, and seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, and disgorgement of wrongfully obtained benefits. We also asserted that any employment agreements with Mr. Scrushy should be void and unenforceable. On July 7, 2009, we filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims by Mr. Scrushy based upon the Tucker court’s June 18, 2009 ruling that Mr. Scrushy’s employment agreements are void and rescinded. We understand that the court does not intend to rule on this motion at the present time.

On June 18, 2009, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama ruled on our derivative claims against Mr. Scrushy presented during a non-jury trial held May 11 to May 26, 2009. The court held Mr. Scrushy responsible for fraud and breach of fiduciary duties and awarded us $2.9 billion in damages. On July 24, 2009, Mr. Scrushy filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s decision, and the parties subsequently submitted their briefs to the Supreme Court of Alabama. On January 28, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision in its entirety. On April 15, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court denied Mr. Scrushy’s application for a rehearing of the Supreme Court’s initial decision. On July 12, 2011, Mr. Scrushy, appearing pro se, filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of certain aspects of the trial court proceedings and judgment against him. Included in his petition were objections to the derivative nature of the case, the size of the award, and the fact he was only present in the courtroom during portions of the trial when he was being examined. We cannot predict when or how the Supreme Court will rule on this motion, nor can we, at this time, predict when and to what extent this judgment can be collected. We will pursue collection aggressively and to the fullest extent permitted by law. We, in coordination with derivative plaintiffs’ counsel, are attempting to locate, in order to collect the judgment, Mr. Scrushy’s current assets and other assets we believe were improperly disposed. Part of this effort is a fraudulent transfer complaint filed on July 2, 2009 against Mr. Scrushy and a number of related entities by derivative plaintiffs for the benefit of HealthSouth in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Tucker v. Scrushy et al.

While these collection efforts continue, some of Mr. Scrushy’s assets have been seized and sold at auction pursuant to the state law procedure for collection of a judgment. Other assets will likewise be sold from time to time. On May 3, 2011, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County entered an order for an initial distribution to HealthSouth. After reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by HealthSouth and the attorneys for the derivative shareholder plaintiffs for property maintenance of and fees incurred to locate Mr. Scrushy’s assets and after recording a liability for the federal plaintiffs’ 25% apportionment of any net recovery from Mr. Scrushy as required under the Consolidated Securities Action settlement, we recorded a $10.6 million net gain in Government, class action, and related settlements in our condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 in connection with this initial cash distribution. We are obligated to pay 35% of any recovery from Mr. Scrushy along with reasonable out-of-pocket expenses to the attorneys for the derivative shareholder plaintiffs. In connection with those obligations, in April 2011, $4.4 million of the amounts previously collected were distributed to attorneys for the derivative shareholder plaintiffs. We recorded this cash distribution as part of Professional fees— accounting, tax, and legal in our condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011.

Litigation By and Against Former Independent Auditor—

In March 2003, claims on behalf of HealthSouth were brought in the Tucker derivative litigation against Ernst & Young, alleging that from 1996 through 2002, when Ernst & Young served as our independent auditor, Ernst & Young acted recklessly and with gross negligence in performing its duties, and specifically that Ernst & Young failed to perform reviews and audits of our financial statements with due professional care as required by law and by its contractual agreements with us. The claims further allege Ernst & Young either knew of or, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered and investigated the fraudulent and improper accounting practices being directed by certain officers and employees, and should have reported them to our board of directors and the audit committee. The claims seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of fees received from us by Ernst & Young, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 18, 2005, Ernst & Young filed a lawsuit captioned Ernst & Young LLP v. HealthSouth Corp. in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. The complaint alleges we provided Ernst & Young with fraudulent management representation letters, financial statements, invoices, bank reconciliations, and journal entries in an effort to conceal accounting fraud. Ernst & Young claims that as a result of our actions, Ernst & Young’s reputation has been injured and it has and will incur damages, expenses, and legal fees. On April 1, 2005, we answered Ernst & Young’s claims and asserted counterclaims related or identical to those asserted in the Tucker action. Upon Ernst & Young’s motion, the Alabama state court referred Ernst & Young’s claims and our counterclaims to arbitration pursuant to a clause in the engagement agreements between HealthSouth and Ernst & Young. On July 12, 2006, we and the derivative plaintiffs filed an arbitration demand on behalf of HealthSouth against Ernst & Young. On August 7, 2006, Ernst & Young filed an answering statement and counterclaim in the arbitration reasserting the claims made in state court. In August 2006, we and the derivative plaintiffs agreed to jointly prosecute the claims against Ernst & Young in arbitration.

We are vigorously pursuing our claims against Ernst & Young and defending the claims against us. The three-person arbitration panel that is adjudicating the claims and counterclaims in arbitration was selected under rules of the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”). The trial phase of the arbitration process began on July 12, 2010 and is continuing as schedules permit. However, pursuant to an order of the AAA panel, all aspects of the arbitration are confidential. Accordingly, we will not discuss the arbitration until there is a resolution. Based on the stage of arbitration, and review of the current facts and circumstances, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility of a loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this case.

General Medicine Action—

On August 16, 2004, General Medicine, P.C. filed a lawsuit against us captioned General Medicine, P.C. v. HealthSouth Corp. seeking the recovery of allegedly fraudulent transfers involving assets of Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation, a former subsidiary of HealthSouth. The lawsuit is pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama (the “Alabama Action”).

The underlying claim against Horizon/CMS originates from a services contract entered into in 1995 between General Medicine and Horizon/CMS whereby General Medicine agreed to provide medical director services to skilled nursing facilities owned by Horizon/CMS for a term of three years. Horizon/CMS terminated the agreement six months after it was executed, and General Medicine then initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1996 (the “Michigan Action”). General Medicine’s complaint in the Michigan Action alleged that Horizon/CMS breached the services contract by wrongfully terminating General Medicine. We acquired Horizon/CMS in 1997 and sold it to Meadowbrook Healthcare, Inc. in 2001 pursuant to a stock purchase agreement. In 2004, Meadowbrook consented to the entry of a final judgment in the Michigan Action in the amount of $376 million (the “Consent Judgment”) in favor of General Medicine against Horizon/CMS for the alleged wrongful termination of the contract with General Medicine. We were not a party to the Michigan Action or the settlement negotiated by Meadowbrook.

The complaint filed by General Medicine against us in the Alabama Action alleged that while Horizon/CMS was our wholly owned subsidiary and General Medicine was an existing creditor of Horizon/CMS, we caused Horizon/CMS to transfer its assets to us for less than a reasonably equivalent value or, in the alternative, with the actual intent to defraud creditors of Horizon/CMS, including General Medicine, in violation of the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. General Medicine also alleged in its amended complaint that as Horizon’s parent we failed to observe corporate formalities in its operation and ownership of Horizon, misused its control of Horizon, stripped assets from Horizon, and engaged in other conduct which amounted to a fraud on Horizon’s creditors, including General Medicine. General Medicine has requested relief including recovery of the unpaid amount of the Consent Judgment, the avoidance of the subject transfers of assets, attachment of the assets transferred to us, appointment of a receiver over the transferred properties, and a monetary judgment for the value of properties transferred.

In the Alabama Action, we have denied liability to General Medicine and asserted counterclaims against for fraud, injurious falsehood, tortious interference with business relations, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, abuse of process, and other causes of action. In our counterclaims, we alleged the Consent Judgment is the product of fraud, collusion and bad faith by General Medicine and Meadowbrook and, further, that these parties were guilty of a conspiracy to manufacture a lawsuit against HealthSouth in favor of General Medicine. The Alabama Action is presently stayed subject to the outcome of the pending appeal in the Michigan Action discussed below.

In the Michigan Action, we filed a motion asking the court to set aside the Consent Judgment on grounds that it was the product of fraud on the court and collusion by the parties. On May 21, 2009, the court granted our motion to set aside the Consent Judgment on grounds that it was the product of fraud on the court. On February 25, 2010, the court ruled that no further proceedings were necessary in the Michigan Action. On March 9, 2010, General Medicine filed an appeal of the court’s decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal now has been fully briefed by the parties, but oral argument has not yet been scheduled. At this time, we do not know when the Court of Appeals will rule on the appeal.

The Alabama Action, the Michigan Action, and the Consent Judgment are described in more detail in Note 22, Contingencies and Other Commitments, to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2010 Form 10-K.

Although both the Michigan Action and the Alabama Action remain pending and it is not possible to predict the outcome of either case, we do not believe, based on the stage of litigation, prior rulings in our favor, and review of the current facts and circumstances, there is a reasonable possibility of a loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against General Medicine’s claims and to vigorously prosecute our counterclaims against General Medicine.

Other Litigation—

We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs alleged that we, some of our former officers, and our former auditor engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing filed on December 22, 2010. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on the stage of litigation and review of the current facts and circumstances, it is not possible to estimate with confidence the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this case.

We were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 3, 2009 by an individual in the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, South Carolina, captioned Sulton v. HealthSouth Corp, et al. The plaintiff alleged that certain treatment he received at a HealthSouth facility complicated a pre-existing infectious injury. The plaintiff sought recovery for pain and suffering, medical expenses, punitive damages, and other damages. On July 30, 2010, the jury in this case returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $12.3 million in damages. On May 2, 2011, we filed our brief in the appeal of this verdict with the South Carolina Court of Appeals, and the plaintiff’s response brief is due to be filed with the court in August 2011. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. We believe the attending nurses acted both responsibly and professionally, and we will continue to support and defend them. Although we continue to believe in the merit of our defenses and counterarguments, we have recorded a liability of $12.3 million in Accrued expenses and other current liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 with a corresponding receivable of $7.7 million in Other current assets for the portion of the claim we expect to be covered through our excess insurance coverages, resulting in a net charge of $4.6 million to Other operating expenses in the second quarter of 2010. The $4.6 million portion of this claim would be a covered claim through our captive insurance subsidiary, HCS, Ltd. As a result of the verdict, during the third quarter of 2010, we made a $6.0 million payment through HCS, Ltd. to the Richland County Clerk as a deposit during the on-going appeal process. The deposit is a restricted asset included in Other current assets in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Other Matters—

The False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. § 287, allows private citizens, called “relators,” to institute civil proceedings alleging violations of the False Claims Act. These qui tam cases are generally sealed by the court at the time of filing. The only parties privy to the information contained in the complaint are the relator, the federal government, and the presiding court. It is possible that qui tam lawsuits have been filed against us and that we are unaware of such filings or have been ordered by the presiding court not to discuss or disclose the filing of such lawsuits. We may be subject to liability under one or more undisclosed qui tam cases brought pursuant to the False Claims Act.

It is our obligation as a participant in Medicare and other federal healthcare programs to routinely conduct audits and reviews of the accuracy of our billing systems and other regulatory compliance matters. As a result of these reviews, we have made, and will continue to make, disclosures to the Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (the “HHS-OIG”) relating to amounts we suspect represent over-payments from these programs, whether due to inaccurate billing or otherwise. Some of these disclosures have resulted in, or may result in, HealthSouth refunding amounts to Medicare or other federal healthcare programs. See Note 21, Settlements, “The 2007 Referral Source Settlement,” to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2010 Form 10-K.

On June 24, 2011, we received a document subpoena addressed to the Houston LTCH from the HHS-OIG. The subpoena is in connection with an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and requests documents and materials relating to the Houston LTCH’s patient admissions, length of stay, and discharge matters. We are cooperating fully with the HHS-OIG in connection with this subpoena and are currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of this investigation. See also Note 7, Assets Held for Sale and Results of Discontinued Operations.

We also face certain financial risks and challenges relating to our 2007 divestiture transactions (see Note 18, Assets Held for Sale and Results of Discontinued Operations, to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2010 Form 10-K) following their closing. These include indemnification obligations, which in the aggregate could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.