Contingencies, Litigation and Subsequent Event	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Contingencies, Litigation and Subsequent Event [Abstract]
Contingencies, Litigation and Subsequent Event	Note H — Contingencies, Litigation and Subsequent Event On March 25, 2011, George Raymond Williams, MD. (“Williams”), as plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a First Amended and Restated Petition for Damages and Class Certification in the 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, Louisiana, against CorVel Corporation (“CorVel”) and its insurance carriers, Homeland Insurance Company of New York and Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and several other unrelated parties. Williams alleges that CorVel violated Louisiana’s Any Willing Provider Act (the “AWPA”), which requires a payor accessing a preferred provider contract to give 30 days’ advance written notice or point of service notice in the form of a benefit card before the payor accesses the discounted rates in the contract to pay the provider for services rendered to an insured under that payor’s health benefit plan. On March 31, 2011, CorVel entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the class setting forth the terms of settlement of this class action lawsuit. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that subject to the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and final non-appealable approval of such settlement by the Louisiana state court, CorVel will pay $9 million to resolve claims for which CorVel recorded a $9 million pre-tax charge to earnings during the March 2011 quarter. In addition, CorVel will assign to the class certain rights it has to the proceeds of CorVel’s insurance policies relating to the claims asserted by the class. The class action arbitration filed with the American Arbitration Association against CorVel in December 2006 by Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association dba Lake Charles Memorial Hospital as previously disclosed by CorVel is encompassed within the settlement terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have also agreed to request that the appropriate courts stay all related proceedings in State and Federal Court, as well as the Louisiana Office of Workers Compensation and the arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association in which the parties are named, until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed and receives final court approval. The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability. On June 23, 2011 CorVel and class counsel executed a definitive settlement agreement. The settlement agreement contains the same terms and conditions as were set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding. Accordingly, CorVel made a $9 million cash payment into escrow on July 6, 2011. As set forth in the settlement agreement, certain contingencies such as preliminary court approval, resolutions of objections filed by class members challenging the fairness of the settlement, class members excluded from the settlement not exceeding a materiality threshold, and final court approval, must be satisfied before the settlement can become final. On June 23, 2011, the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry, Louisiana granted preliminary approval of settlement and set a deadline of October 16, 2011 for parties to opt out of or object to the proposed settlement. Notice of the settlement was given to Class Members. The Court gave final approval of the settlement on November 4, 2011. No appeal has been filed since that time, so the judgment became final on January 17, 2012. CorVel has begun to move for dismissal of all claims covered by the settlement in state and federal court. In exchange for the settlement payment by CorVel, class members will release CorVel and all of its affiliates and clients for any claims relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or reimbursement of a workers’ compensation bill, including but not limited to claims under the AWPA. Plaintiffs have also agreed to a notice procedure that CorVel may follow in the future to comply with the AWPA. In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against the Company. The case sought unspecified damages based on the Company’s alleged failure to direct patients to medical providers who were members of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleged that the Company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review medical providers’ bills. The Company denies that its conduct was improper in any way and denied all liability. On October 29, 2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement providing for the payment of $2.1 million to class members and up to an additional $700,000 for attorneys’ fees and expenses, and as a result the Company accrued $2.8 million of estimated liability for this settlement agreement during the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In exchange for the settlement payment by the Company, class members consisting of Illinois medical providers (excluding hospitals) have released the Company and all of its affiliates for claims relating to any PPO or usual and customary reductions recommended by the Company on class members’ medical bills. On January 21, 2011, the Circuit Court gave final approval to the settlement and awarded class counsel $700,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses. A modified final judgment approving the settlement and addressing certain class notice issues was approved on January 20, 2012; the modified judgment did not change the financial terms of the settlement or the release. Final payments were sent to class members on July 16, 2012 and the final report and accounting to the Court should be completed in November 2012. The Company is involved in other litigation arising in the normal course of business. Management believes that resolution of these matters will not result in any payment that, in the aggregate, would be material to the financial position or results of the operations of the Company.

Contingencies, Litigation and Subsequent Event

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Contingencies, Litigation and Subsequent Event [Abstract]

Contingencies, Litigation and Subsequent Event

Note H — Contingencies, Litigation and Subsequent Event

On March 25, 2011, George Raymond Williams, MD. (“Williams”), as plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a First Amended and Restated Petition for Damages and Class Certification in the 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, Louisiana, against CorVel Corporation (“CorVel”) and its insurance carriers, Homeland Insurance Company of New York and Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and several other unrelated parties. Williams alleges that CorVel violated Louisiana’s Any Willing Provider Act (the “AWPA”), which requires a payor accessing a preferred provider contract to give 30 days’ advance written notice or point of service notice in the form of a benefit card before the payor accesses the discounted rates in the contract to pay the provider for services rendered to an insured under that payor’s health benefit plan.

On March 31, 2011, CorVel entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the class setting forth the terms of settlement of this class action lawsuit. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that subject to the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and final non-appealable approval of such settlement by the Louisiana state court, CorVel will pay $9 million to resolve claims for which CorVel recorded a $9 million pre-tax charge to earnings during the March 2011 quarter. In addition, CorVel will assign to the class certain rights it has to the proceeds of CorVel’s insurance policies relating to the claims asserted by the class. The class action arbitration filed with the American Arbitration Association against CorVel in December 2006 by Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association dba Lake Charles Memorial Hospital as previously disclosed by CorVel is encompassed within the settlement terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have also agreed to request that the appropriate courts stay all related proceedings in State and Federal Court, as well as the Louisiana Office of Workers Compensation and the arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association in which the parties are named, until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed and receives final court approval. The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability.

On June 23, 2011 CorVel and class counsel executed a definitive settlement agreement. The settlement agreement contains the same terms and conditions as were set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding. Accordingly, CorVel made a $9 million cash payment into escrow on July 6, 2011. As set forth in the settlement agreement, certain contingencies such as preliminary court approval, resolutions of objections filed by class members challenging the fairness of the settlement, class members excluded from the settlement not exceeding a materiality threshold, and final court approval, must be satisfied before the settlement can become final.

On June 23, 2011, the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry, Louisiana granted preliminary approval of settlement and set a deadline of October 16, 2011 for parties to opt out of or object to the proposed settlement. Notice of the settlement was given to Class Members. The Court gave final approval of the settlement on November 4, 2011. No appeal has been filed since that time, so the judgment became final on January 17, 2012. CorVel has begun to move for dismissal of all claims covered by the settlement in state and federal court.

In exchange for the settlement payment by CorVel, class members will release CorVel and all of its affiliates and clients for any claims relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or reimbursement of a workers’ compensation bill, including but not limited to claims under the AWPA. Plaintiffs have also agreed to a notice procedure that CorVel may follow in the future to comply with the AWPA.

In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against the Company. The case sought unspecified damages based on the Company’s alleged failure to direct patients to medical providers who were members of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleged that the Company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review medical providers’ bills. The Company denies that its conduct was improper in any way and denied all liability. On October 29, 2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement providing for the payment of $2.1 million to class members and up to an additional $700,000 for attorneys’ fees and expenses, and as a result the Company accrued $2.8 million of estimated liability for this settlement agreement during the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In exchange for the settlement payment by the Company, class members consisting of Illinois medical providers (excluding hospitals) have released the Company and all of its affiliates for claims relating to any PPO or usual and customary reductions recommended by the Company on class members’ medical bills. On January 21, 2011, the Circuit Court gave final approval to the settlement and awarded class counsel $700,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses. A modified final judgment approving the settlement and addressing certain class notice issues was approved on January 20, 2012; the modified judgment did not change the financial terms of the settlement or the release. Final payments were sent to class members on July 16, 2012 and the final report and accounting to the Court should be completed in November 2012.

The Company is involved in other litigation arising in the normal course of business. Management believes that resolution of these matters will not result in any payment that, in the aggregate, would be material to the financial position or results of the operations of the Company.