Contingencies and Other Commitments	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Other Commitments	Contingencies and Other Commitments: 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. General Medicine Action— On August 16, 2004, General Medicine, P.C. filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama (the “Alabama Action”) 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. General Medicine’s 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 for cause six months after it was executed, and General Medicine then initiated a lawsuit against Horizon/CMS 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, without the knowledge of HealthSouth, consented to the entry of a final judgment in the Michigan Action in favor of General Medicine against Horizon/CMS for the alleged wrongful termination of the contract with General Medicine in the amount of $376 million (the “Consent Judgment”). The $376 million damages figure was unilaterally selected by General Medicine and was not tested or opposed by Meadowbrook. Additionally, the settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) used as the basis for the Consent Judgment provided that Meadowbrook would pay only $300,000 to General Medicine to settle the Michigan Action and that General Medicine would seek to recover the remaining balance of the Consent Judgment solely from us. We were not a party to the Michigan Action, the Settlement negotiated by Meadowbrook, or the Consent Judgment. The complaint filed by General Medicine against us in the Alabama Action alleged that while Horizon/CMS was our wholly owned subsidiary, General Medicine was an existing creditor of Horizon/CMS by virtue of the breach of contract claim underlying the Settlement. The complaint also alleged 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 further alleged in its amended complaint that we were liable for the Consent Judgment despite not being a party to it because as Horizon/CMS’s parent we failed to observe corporate formalities in our operation and ownership of Horizon/CMS, misused our control of Horizon/CMS, stripped assets from Horizon/CMS, and engaged in other conduct which amounted to a fraud on Horizon/CMS’s creditors. General Medicine 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. We denied liability to General Medicine and asserted defenses and a counterclaim against General Medicine that the Consent Judgment was the product of collusion by General Medicine and Meadowbrook. Consequently, we asserted that the Consent Judgment was not evidence of a legitimate debt owed by Horizon/CMS to General Medicine that was collectible from HealthSouth under any theory of liability. The trial in the Alabama Action began on March 9, 2015. On March 22, 2015, we entered into an agreement with General Medicine to settle the Alabama Action. Although the specific terms of this settlement agreement are confidential, both parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice the lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama and to release all claims between the parties. In exchange for General Medicine’s release, we agreed to pay an amount of cash that is not material. 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 allege that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank 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 a now resolved 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 filed on December 22, 2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to 2002. On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. A hearing on our motion has not yet been set. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case. Governmental Inquiries and Investigations— On June 24, 2011, we received a document subpoena addressed to HealthSouth Hospital of Houston, a long-term acute care hospital (“LTCH”) we closed in August 2011, and issued from the Dallas, Texas office of the HHS-OIG. The subpoena stated it was in connection with an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and requested documents and materials relating to patient admissions, length of stay, and discharge matters at this closed LTCH. We furnished the documents requested and have heard nothing from the HHS-OIG since December 2012. On March 4, 2013, we received document subpoenas from an office of the HHS-OIG addressed to four of our hospitals. Those subpoenas also requested complete copies of medical records for 100 patients treated at each of those hospitals between September 2008 and June 2012. The investigation is being conducted by the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). On April 24, 2014, we received document subpoenas relating to an additional seven of our hospitals. The new subpoenas reference substantially similar investigation subject matter as the original subpoenas and request materials from the period January 2008 through December 2013. Two of the four hospitals addressed in the original set of subpoenas have received supplemental subpoenas to cover this new time period. The most recent subpoenas do not include requests for specific patient files. However, in February 2015, the DOJ requested the voluntary production of the medical records of an additional 70 patients, some of whom were treated in hospitals not subject to the subpoenas, and we provided these records. All of the subpoenas are in connection with an investigation of alleged improper or fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and request documents and materials relating to practices, procedures, protocols and policies, of certain pre- and post-admissions activities at these hospitals including, among other things, marketing functions, pre-admission screening, post-admission physician evaluations, patient assessment instruments, individualized patient plans of care, and compliance with the Medicare 60% rule. Under the Medicare rule commonly referred to as the “60% rule,” an inpatient rehabilitation hospital must treat 60% or more of its patients from at least one of a specified list of medical conditions in order to be reimbursed at the inpatient rehabilitation hospital payment rates, rather than at the lower acute care hospital payment rates. We are cooperating fully with the DOJ in connection with these subpoenas and are currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of the related investigations. 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 sealed by the court at the time of filing. Prior to the release of the seal by the presiding court, the only parties typically privy to the information contained in the complaint are the relator, the federal government, and the court. It is possible that qui tam lawsuits have been filed against us and that those suits remain under seal or that we are unaware of such filings or prevented by existing law or court order from discussing or disclosing the filing of such suits. 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 HHS-OIG and CMS 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. Other Commitments— We are a party to service and other contracts in connection with conducting our business. Minimum amounts due under these agreements are $33.3 million in 2016, $28.2 million in 2017, $21.1 million in 2018, $12.6 million in 2019, $11.9 million in 2020, and $7.2 million thereafter. These contracts primarily relate to software licensing and support.

Contingencies and Other Commitments:

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.

General Medicine Action—

On August 16, 2004, General Medicine, P.C. filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama (the “Alabama Action”) 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.

General Medicine’s 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 for cause six months after it was executed, and General Medicine then initiated a lawsuit against Horizon/CMS 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, without the knowledge of HealthSouth, consented to the entry of a final judgment in the Michigan Action in favor of General Medicine against Horizon/CMS for the alleged wrongful termination of the contract with General Medicine in the amount of $376 million (the “Consent Judgment”). The $376 million damages figure was unilaterally selected by General Medicine and was not tested or opposed by Meadowbrook. Additionally, the settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) used as the basis for the Consent Judgment provided that Meadowbrook would pay only $300,000 to General Medicine to settle the Michigan Action and that General Medicine would seek to recover the remaining balance of the Consent Judgment solely from us. We were not a party to the Michigan Action, the Settlement negotiated by Meadowbrook, or the Consent Judgment.

The complaint filed by General Medicine against us in the Alabama Action alleged that while Horizon/CMS was our wholly owned subsidiary, General Medicine was an existing creditor of Horizon/CMS by virtue of the breach of contract claim underlying the Settlement. The complaint also alleged 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 further alleged in its amended complaint that we were liable for the Consent Judgment despite not being a party to it because as Horizon/CMS’s parent we failed to observe corporate formalities in our operation and ownership of Horizon/CMS, misused our control of Horizon/CMS, stripped assets from Horizon/CMS, and engaged in other conduct which amounted to a fraud on Horizon/CMS’s creditors. General Medicine 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.

We denied liability to General Medicine and asserted defenses and a counterclaim against General Medicine that the Consent Judgment was the product of collusion by General Medicine and Meadowbrook. Consequently, we asserted that the Consent Judgment was not evidence of a legitimate debt owed by Horizon/CMS to General Medicine that was collectible from HealthSouth under any theory of liability.

The trial in the Alabama Action began on March 9, 2015. On March 22, 2015, we entered into an agreement with General Medicine to settle the Alabama Action. Although the specific terms of this settlement agreement are confidential, both parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice the lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama and to release all claims between the parties. In exchange for General Medicine’s release, we agreed to pay an amount of cash that is not material.

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 allege that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank 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 a now resolved 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 filed on December 22, 2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to 2002. On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. A hearing on our motion has not yet been set.

We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case.

Governmental Inquiries and Investigations—

On June 24, 2011, we received a document subpoena addressed to HealthSouth Hospital of Houston, a long-term acute care hospital (“LTCH”) we closed in August 2011, and issued from the Dallas, Texas office of the HHS-OIG. The subpoena stated it was in connection with an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and requested documents and materials relating to patient admissions, length of stay, and discharge matters at this closed LTCH. We furnished the documents requested and have heard nothing from the HHS-OIG since December 2012.

On March 4, 2013, we received document subpoenas from an office of the HHS-OIG addressed to four of our hospitals. Those subpoenas also requested complete copies of medical records for 100 patients treated at each of those hospitals between September 2008 and June 2012. The investigation is being conducted by the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). On April 24, 2014, we received document subpoenas relating to an additional seven of our hospitals. The new subpoenas reference substantially similar investigation subject matter as the original subpoenas and request materials from the period January 2008 through December 2013. Two of the four hospitals addressed in the original set of subpoenas have received supplemental subpoenas to cover this new time period. The most recent subpoenas do not include requests for specific patient files. However, in February 2015, the DOJ requested the voluntary production of the medical records of an additional 70 patients, some of whom were treated in hospitals not subject to the subpoenas, and we provided these records.

All of the subpoenas are in connection with an investigation of alleged improper or fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and request documents and materials relating to practices, procedures, protocols and policies, of certain pre- and post-admissions activities at these hospitals including, among other things, marketing functions, pre-admission screening, post-admission physician evaluations, patient assessment instruments, individualized patient plans of care, and compliance with the Medicare 60% rule. Under the Medicare rule commonly referred to as the “60% rule,” an inpatient rehabilitation hospital must treat 60% or more of its patients from at least one of a specified list of medical conditions in order to be reimbursed at the inpatient rehabilitation hospital payment rates, rather than at the lower acute care hospital payment rates.

We are cooperating fully with the DOJ in connection with these subpoenas and are currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of the related investigations.

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 sealed by the court at the time of filing. Prior to the release of the seal by the presiding court, the only parties typically privy to the information contained in the complaint are the relator, the federal government, and the court. It is possible that qui tam lawsuits have been filed against us and that those suits remain under seal or that we are unaware of such filings or prevented by existing law or court order from discussing or disclosing the filing of such suits. 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 HHS-OIG and CMS 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.

Other Commitments—

We are a party to service and other contracts in connection with conducting our business. Minimum amounts due under these agreements are $33.3 million in 2016, $28.2 million in 2017, $21.1 million in 2018, $12.6 million in 2019, $11.9 million in 2020, and $7.2 million thereafter. These contracts primarily relate to software licensing and support.