Contingencies and Other Commitments	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
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. Nichols Litigation— We were 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 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 Encompass Health 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 the former officers named as a defendant 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 were derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Supreme Court of Alabama on June 28, 2016. On March 23, 2018, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were not derivative or time-barred, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On April 6, 2018, we filed an application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court. 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 an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case. Other Litigation— One of our hospital subsidiaries was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed August 12, 2013 by an individual in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama, captioned Honts v. HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Gadsden, LLC. The plaintiff alleged that her mother, who died more than three months after being discharged from our hospital, received an unprescribed opiate medication at the hospital. We deny the patient received any such medication, accounted for all the opiates at the hospital and argued the plaintiff established no causal liability between the actions of our staff and her mother’s death. The plaintiff sought recovery for punitive damages. On May 18, 2016, the jury in this case returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $20.0 million. On June 17, 2016, we filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial or, in the further alternative, a motion seeking reduction of the damages awarded (collectively, the “post-judgment motions”). The trial court denied the post-judgment motions. We appealed the verdict as well as the rulings on the post-judgment motions to the Supreme Court of Alabama on October 12, 2016. On September 28, 2018, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. On October 12, 2018, the plaintiff filed an application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court, and we filed a brief in opposition to the rehearing application on October 25, 2018. As a result of the original judgment, we recorded a net charge of $5.7 million to Other operating expenses in our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. As of June 30, 2018, we maintained a liability of $20.1 million in Accrued expenses and other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheet with a corresponding receivable of $15.5 million in Other current assets for the portion of the liability we would expect to be covered through our excess insurance coverages. The portion of this liability that would be a covered claim through our captive insurance subsidiary, HCS, Ltd. is $6.0 million. As a result of the Alabama Supreme Court’s reversal, we reduced the associated liability, and no longer maintain an insurance receivable in our condensed consolidated balance sheet because we do not believe the liability exceeds the retention level. As of September 30, 2018, we maintained a liability included in Accrued expenses and other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheet in connection with this matter. We continue to believe in the merit of our defenses and counterarguments, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the re-trial of this case. Governmental Inquiries and Investigations— On March 4, 2013, we received document subpoenas from an office of the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (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. We have not received any subsequent requests for medical records from the DOJ. 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 this investigation and are currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of it. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. Based on discussions with the DOJ, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, and the nature of the investigation, it is not possible to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from it. Other Matters— The False Claims Act allows private citizens, called “relators,” to institute civil proceedings on behalf of the United States alleging violations of the False Claims Act. These lawsuits, also known as “whistleblower” or “qui tam” actions, can involve significant monetary damages, fines, attorneys’ fees and the award of bounties to the relators who successfully prosecute or bring these suits to the government. Qui tam cases are sealed at the time of filing, which means knowledge of the information contained in the complaint typically is limited to the relator, the federal government, and the presiding court. The defendant in a qui tam action may remain unaware of the existence of a sealed complaint for years. While the complaint is under seal, the government reviews the merits of the case and may conduct a broad investigation and seek discovery from the defendant and other parties before deciding whether to intervene in the case and take the lead on litigating the claims. The court lifts the seal when the government makes its decision on whether to intervene. If the government decides not to intervene, the relator may elect to continue to pursue the lawsuit individually on behalf of the government. It is possible that qui tam lawsuits have been filed against us, which suits remain under seal, or that we are unaware of such filings or precluded 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, Encompass Health refunding amounts to Medicare or other federal healthcare programs.

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.

Nichols Litigation—

We were 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 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 Encompass Health 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 the former officers named as a defendant 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 were derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Supreme Court of Alabama on June 28, 2016. On March 23, 2018, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were not derivative or time-barred, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On April 6, 2018, we filed an application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court.

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 an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case.

Other Litigation—

One of our hospital subsidiaries was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed August 12, 2013 by an individual in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama, captioned Honts v. HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Gadsden, LLC. The plaintiff alleged that her mother, who died more than three months after being discharged from our hospital, received an unprescribed opiate medication at the hospital. We deny the patient received any such medication, accounted for all the opiates at the hospital and argued the plaintiff established no causal liability between the actions of our staff and her mother’s death. The plaintiff sought recovery for punitive damages. On May 18, 2016, the jury in this case returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $20.0 million. On June 17, 2016, we filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial or, in the further alternative, a motion seeking reduction of the damages awarded (collectively, the “post-judgment motions”). The trial court denied the post-judgment motions. We appealed the verdict as well as the rulings on the post-judgment motions to the Supreme Court of Alabama on October 12, 2016. On September 28, 2018, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. On October 12, 2018, the plaintiff filed an application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court, and we filed a brief in opposition to the rehearing application on October 25, 2018.

As a result of the original judgment, we recorded a net charge of $5.7 million to Other operating expenses in our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. As of June 30, 2018, we maintained a liability of $20.1 million in Accrued expenses and other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheet with a corresponding receivable of $15.5 million in Other current assets for the portion of the liability we would expect to be covered through our excess insurance coverages. The portion of this liability that would be a covered claim through our captive insurance subsidiary, HCS, Ltd. is $6.0 million.

As a result of the Alabama Supreme Court’s reversal, we reduced the associated liability, and no longer maintain an insurance receivable in our condensed consolidated balance sheet because we do not believe the liability exceeds the retention level. As of September 30, 2018, we maintained a liability included in Accrued expenses and other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheet in connection with this matter. We continue to believe in the merit of our defenses and counterarguments, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the re-trial of this case.

Governmental Inquiries and Investigations—

On March 4, 2013, we received document subpoenas from an office of the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (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. We have not received any subsequent requests for medical records from the DOJ.

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 this investigation and are currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of it. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. Based on discussions with the DOJ, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, and the nature of the investigation, it is not possible to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from it.

Other Matters—

The False Claims Act allows private citizens, called “relators,” to institute civil proceedings on behalf of the United States alleging violations of the False Claims Act. These lawsuits, also known as “whistleblower” or “qui tam” actions, can involve significant monetary damages, fines, attorneys’ fees and the award of bounties to the relators who successfully prosecute or bring these suits to the government. Qui tam cases are sealed at the time of filing, which means knowledge of the information contained in the complaint typically is limited to the relator, the federal government, and the presiding court. The defendant in a qui tam action may remain unaware of the existence of a sealed complaint for years. While the complaint is under seal, the government reviews the merits of the case and may conduct a broad investigation and seek discovery from the defendant and other parties before deciding whether to intervene in the case and take the lead on litigating the claims. The court lifts the seal when the government makes its decision on whether to intervene. If the government decides not to intervene, the relator may elect to continue to pursue the lawsuit individually on behalf of the government. It is possible that qui tam lawsuits have been filed against us, which suits remain under seal, or that we are unaware of such filings or precluded 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, Encompass Health refunding amounts to Medicare or other federal healthcare programs.