Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies.

Commitments and Contingencies

10.Commitments and Contingencies

The Company, in the ordinary course of business, could be subject to liability claims related to employees and the equipment that it rents and services. Asserted claims are subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable. Certain claims where the loss is probable, a provision is recorded based on the Company’s best estimate. While the ultimate resolution of these actions may have an impact on the Company’s financial results for a particular reporting period, management believes that any such resolution would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company and the chance of a negative outcome on outstanding litigation is considered remote.

In 2014, a supplier ceased distribution of one of their products in the United States following a request from the FDA. On May 7, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with the former supplier resolving all matters related to the cessation of our commercial relationships with each other. The Company received $7.5 million in net cash during 2015 after settling all open receivables and payables between the two parties and return of relevant product. The Company recorded a net gain of $5.7 million related to this settlement.

The Company was notified in 2014 that a national group purchasing organization awarded a sole source agreement to a competitor under agreements that expired on December 31, 2014.

On January 13, 2015, the Company filed suit in the Western District of Texas against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., Hill-Rom Company, Inc. and Hill-Rom Services, Inc. (the "Defendants") alleging that the Defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws by willfully and unlawfully engaging in a pattern of exclusionary and predatory conduct in order to foreclose market competition and seeking actual damages, trebled damages and punitive damages.  On March 4, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to another venue.  On March 23, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case.  On July 2, 2015, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion to transfer.  On October 15, 2015, the Court denied the Defendants motion to dismiss. At this early stage in the litigation, the Company does not believe the expense of litigation will have a material impact on the Company's operating expenses or financial results.