CONTINGENCY - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

B.  CONTINGENCY – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In April 2009, we became aware of a qui tam complaint that was filed under seal by Jeffrey J. Bierman as Relator/Plaintiff on March 28, 2005 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against OrthoLogic and other companies that allegedly manufactured bone growth stimulation devices, including Orthofix International N.V., Orthofix, Inc., DJO Incorporated, Reable Therapeutics, Inc., the Blackstone Group, L.P., Biomet, Inc., EBI, L.P., EBI Holdings, Inc., EBI Medical Systems, Inc., Bioelectron, Inc., LBV Acquisition, Inc., and Smith & Nephew, Inc. By order entered on March 24, 2009, the court unsealed the amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges various causes of action under the federal False Claims Act and state and city false claims acts premised on the contention that the defendants improperly promoted the sale, as opposed to the rental, of bone growth stimulation devices. The amended complaint also includes claims against the defendants for, among other things, allegedly misleading physicians and purportedly causing them to file false claims and for allegedly violating the Anti-kickback Act by providing free products to physicians, waiving patients’ insurance co-payments, and providing inducements to independent sales agents to generate business. The Relator/Plaintiff is seeking civil penalties under various state and federal laws, as well as treble damages, which, in the aggregate could exceed the financial resources of the Company.

The United States Government declined to intervene or participate in the case. On September 4, 2009, the Relator/Plaintiff served the amended complaint on the Company. We sold our bone growth stimulation business in November 2003 and have had no further activity in the bone growth stimulation business since that date. We intend, in conjunction with the other defendants, to defend this matter vigorously and believe that at all times our billing practices in our bone growth stimulation business complied with applicable laws. On December 4, 2009, the Company, in conjunction with the other defendants, moved to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. In response to that motion, Relator/Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On August 17, 2010, the Company, in conjunction with the other defendants, moved to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. That motion was denied by the court on December 8, 2010. On January 28, 2011, we, in conjunction with the other defendants, filed our answer to the second amended complaint. No trial date has been set. Discovery in the case has not yet begun.

Based upon the currently available information, we believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations. However, because of many questions of law and facts that may arise, the outcome of this litigation is uncertain. If we are unable to successfully defend or otherwise dispose of this litigation, and the Relator/Plaintiff is awarded the damages sought, the litigation would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity and results of operations and we would not be able to continue our business as it is presently conducted.