Contingencies and Other Commitments	9 Months Ended
Contingencies and Other Commitments	Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Other Commitments	Contingencies and Other Commitments We operate in a highly regulated industry in which healthcare providers are routinely subject to litigation. 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. In July 2019, we entered into settlement agreements with all but one plaintiff and paid those settling plaintiffs an aggregate amount of cash less than $0.1 million. The remaining plaintiff alleges 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 plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005. However, the complaint has been amended from time to time, including to request certification as a class action. Additionally, one of the former officers named as a defendant has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court. 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 December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the trial court granted our motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court’s dismissal on March 23, 2018. On April 6, 2018, we filed an application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court. On March 22, 2019, the Alabama Supreme Court denied our application for rehearing and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The court has not yet set a date for the trial to begin. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case against the sole remaining plaintiff. 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 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 United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General 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.