COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings – Ongoing

We are involved in the following legal actions:

Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice

On May 21, 2015, we received a Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Subpoena”) issued by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Subpoena requests the delivery of information regarding 53 identified hospice patients to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. It also requests the delivery of documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations and related compliance activities. The Subpoena generally covers the period from January 1, 2011 through May 21, 2015. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. Based on the information currently available to us, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, which may arise from this matter.

Civil Investigative Demand Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice

On November 3, 2015, we received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act relating to claims submitted to Medicare and/or Medicaid for hospice services provided through designated facilities in the Morgantown, West Virginia area. The CID requests the delivery of information to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of West Virginia regarding 66 identified hospice patients, as well as documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations in the Morgantown area. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2009 through August 31, 2015. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. Based on the information currently available to us, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, which may arise from this matter.

On June 27, 2016, we received a CID issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act relating to claims submitted to Medicare and/or Medicaid for hospice services provided through designated facilities in the Parkersburg, West Virginia area. The CID requests the delivery of information to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia regarding 68 identified hospice patients, as well as documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations in the Parkersburg area. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2011 through June 20, 2016. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. Based on the information currently available to us, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, which may arise from this matter.

In addition to the matters referenced in this note, we are involved in legal actions in the normal course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages. We do not believe that these normal course actions, when finally concluded and determined, will have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal fees related to all legal matters are expensed as incurred.

Legal Proceedings – Settled

Wage and Hour Litigation

On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against us in which three former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked over 40 hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. More specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in their misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them overtime pay.

On June 10, 2015, the Company and plaintiffs participated in a mediation whereby they agreed to fully resolve all of plaintiffs’ claims in the lawsuit for $8.0 million, subject to approval by the Court. As of September 30, 2015, we had an accrual of $8.0 million for this matter. On January 29, 2016, the Court approved the final settlement of this case. The settlement became effective on February 26, 2016. As a result of the final amount calculated by the settlement administrator based on claims timely submitted, we reduced our accrual to $5.3 million as of December 31, 2015; this amount was paid during the three-month period ended March 31, 2016.

On September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us in which a former employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in her misclassification as an exempt employee, thereby denying her overtime. The plaintiff alleges violations of federal and state law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. On December 23, 2015, the parties agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement of the Illinois case, and a mediation occurred on April 18, 2016. The parties agreed to settle the case for $0.8 million, subject to court approval, which the Company had accrued as of September 30, 2016. On August 4, 2016, the Court approved the final settlement of this case. The final payment of $0.6 million was paid on November 21, 2016.

Frontier Litigation

On April 2, 2015, Frontier Home Health and Hospice, L.L.C. (“Frontier”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and unfair and deceptive trade practices under Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110b. Frontier acquired our interest in five home health and four hospice care centers in Wyoming and Idaho in April 2014. The complaint alleges that certain of the hospice patients on service at the time of the acquisition did not meet Medicare eligibility requirements and that we breached certain of the representations and warranties under the purchase agreement and therefore, the businesses were worth less than the purchase price. Under the complaint, Frontier seeks declaratory judgment from the District Court that, under the terms of the purchase agreement with Frontier, we are obligated to determine the amount of the alleged Medicare overpayments and reimburse the government for the same in a timely manner, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Company resolved the Frontier litigation for $2.9 million during the three-month period ended December 31, 2016.

Securities Class Action Lawsuits

As previously disclosed, between June 10 and July 28, 2010, several putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the “District Court”) against the Company and certain of our former senior executives. The cases were consolidated into the first-filed action Bach, et al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:10-cv-00395, and the District Court appointed as co-lead plaintiffs the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers’ Retirement System (the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”).

The Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a First Amended Consolidated Complaint (the “First Amended Securities Complaint”) on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of Amedisys’ securities between August 2, 2005 and September 30, 2011. The First Amended Securities Complaint alleges that the Company and seven individual defendants violated Section 10(b), Section 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by materially misrepresenting the Company’s financial results and concealing a scheme to obtain higher Medicare reimbursements and additional patient referrals by (1) providing medically unnecessary care to patients, including certifying and re-certifying patients for medically unnecessary 60-day treatment episodes; (2) implementing clinical tracks such as “Balanced for Life” and wound care programs that provided a pre-set number of therapy visits irrespective of medical need; (3) “upcoding” patients’ Medicare forms to attribute a “primary diagnosis” to a medical condition associated with higher billing rates; and (4) providing improper and illegal remuneration to physicians to obtain patient certifications or re-certifications. The First Amended Securities Complaint sought certification of the case as a class action and an unspecified amount of damages, as well as interest and an award of attorneys’ fees.

On June 12, 2017, the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to settle this matter. All parties to the action executed a binding term sheet that, subject to final documentation and court approval, provided in part for a settlement payment of approximately $43.7 million, and the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation. Approximately $15.0 million of the settlement amount was paid by the Company’s insurance carriers. The net of these two amounts, $28.7 million, was recorded as a charge in our consolidated statements of operations and paid with cash on hand during 2017. On December 19, 2017, the Court entered the final order and judgment on the case.

Other Investigative Matters – Ongoing

Corporate Integrity Agreement

On April 23, 2014, with no admissions of liability on our part, we entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice relating to certain of our clinical and business operations. Concurrently with our entry into this agreement, we entered into a corporate integrity agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General-HHS (“OIG”). The CIA formalizes various aspects of our already existing ethics and compliance programs and contains other requirements designed to help ensure our ongoing compliance with federal health care program requirements. Among other things, the CIA requires us to maintain our existing compliance program, executive compliance committee and compliance committee of the Board of Directors; provide certain compliance training; continue screening new and current employees to ensure they are eligible to participate in federal health care programs; engage an independent review organization to perform certain audits and reviews and prepare certain reports regarding our compliance with federal health care programs, our billing submissions to federal health care programs and our compliance and risk mitigation programs; and provide certain reports and management certifications to the OIG. Additionally, the CIA specifically requires that we report substantial overpayments that we discover we have received from federal health care programs, as well as probable violations of federal health care laws. Upon breach of the CIA, we could become liable for payment of certain stipulated penalties, or could be excluded from participation in federal health care programs. The corporate integrity agreement has a term of five years.

Idaho and Wyoming Self-Report

During 2016, the Company engaged an independent auditing firm to perform a clinical audit of the hospice care centers acquired by Frontier Home Health and Hospice in April 2014. As of December 31, 2018, we have recorded $1.3 million to accrued expenses in our consolidated balance sheet related to this matter.

Other Investigative Matters – Settled

Corporate Integrity Agreement

During the course of our compliance with the CIA, the Company identified several reportable events and notified the OIG as required. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had an accrual of $4.7 million for these matters. On May 5, 2016, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the OIG and the matters were fully resolved for $4.7 million; this amount was paid during the three-month period ended June 30, 2016.

Third Party Audits – Ongoing

From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, we are subject to audits under various governmental programs in which third party firms engaged by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) conduct extensive review of claims data to identify potential improper payments.

In July 2010, our subsidiary that provides hospice services in Florence, South Carolina received from a Zone Program Integrity Contractor (“ZPIC”) a request for records regarding a sample of 30 beneficiaries who received services from the subsidiary during the period of January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010 (the “Review Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. We acquired the hospice operations subject to this review on August 1, 2009; the Review Period covers time periods both before and after our ownership of these hospice operations. Based on the ZPIC’s findings for 16 beneficiaries, which were extrapolated to all claims for hospice services provided by the Florence subsidiary billed during the Review Period, on June 6, 2011, the Medicare Administrative Contractor ("MAC") for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment. We dispute these findings, and our Florence subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. An administrative law judge ("ALJ") hearing was held in early January 2015. On January 18, 2016, we received a letter dated January 6, 2016 referencing the ALJ hearing decision for the overpayment issued on June 6, 2011. The decision was partially favorable with a new overpayment amount of $3.7 million with a balance owed of $5.6 million including interest based on 9 disputed claims (originally 16). We filed an appeal to the Medicare Appeals Council on the remaining 9 disputed claims and also argued that the statistical method used to select the sample was not valid. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the Medicare Appeals Council decision. As of December 31, 2018, Medicare has withheld payments of $5.7 million (including additional interest) as part of their standard procedures once this level of the appeal process has been reached. In the event we are not able to recoup this alleged overpayment, we are entitled to be indemnified by the prior owners of the hospice operations for amounts relating to the period prior to August 1, 2009. On January 10, 2019, an arbitration panel from the American Health Lawyers Association determined that the prior owners' liability for their indemnification obligation was $2.8 million. Accordingly, the Company reduced its indemnity receivable from $4.9 million to $2.8 million. The $2.1 million impact was recorded to general and administrative expenses, other within our consolidated statements of operations. As of December 31, 2018, we have an indemnity receivable of approximately $2.8 million for the amount withheld related to the period prior to August 1, 2009.

In July 2016, the Company received a request for medical records from SafeGuard Services, L.L.C (“SafeGuard”), a ZPIC, related to services provided by some of the care centers that the Company acquired from Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. The review period covers time periods both before and after our ownership of the care centers, which were acquired on December 31, 2015. In August 2017, the Company received Requests for Repayment from Palmetto GBA, LLC (“Palmetto”) regarding Infinity Home Care of Lakeland, LLC, (“Lakeland Care Centers”) and Infinity Home Care of Pinellas, LLC, (“Clearwater Care Center”). The Palmetto letters are based on a statistical extrapolation performed by SafeGuard which alleged an overpayment of $34.0 million for the Lakeland Care Centers on a universe of 72 Medicare claims totaling $0.2 million in actual claims payments using a 100% error rate and an overpayment of $4.8 million for the Clearwater Care Center on a universe of 70 Medicare claims totaling $0.2 million in actual claims payments using a 100% error rate.

The Lakeland Request for Repayment covers claims between January 2, 2014 and September 13, 2016. The Clearwater Request for Repayment covers claims between January 2, 2015 and December 9, 2016. As a result of partially successful Level I and Level II Administrative Appeals, the alleged overpayment for the Lakeland Care Centers has been reduced to $26.0 million and the alleged overpayment for the Clearwater Care Center has been reduced to $3.3 million. The Company has now filed Level III Administrative Appeals, and will continue to vigorously pursue its appeal rights, which include contesting the methodology used by the ZPIC contractor to perform statistical extrapolation. The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by the prior owners for all claims prior to December 31, 2015, for up to $12.6 million.

At this stage of the review, based on the information currently available to the Company, the Company cannot predict the timing or outcome of this review. The Company estimates a low-end potential range of loss related to this review of $6.5 million (assuming the Company is successful in seeking indemnity from the prior owners and unsuccessful in demonstrating that the extrapolation method used by SafeGuard was erroneous). The Company has reduced its high-end potential range of loss from $38.8 million (the maximum amount Palmetto claims has been overpaid for both the Lakeland Care Centers and the Clearwater Care Center, of which amount $12.6 million is subject to indemnification by the prior owners) to $29.3 million based on the partial success achieved by the Company in prosecuting its Level I and II Administrative Appeals.

As of December 31, 2018, we have an accrued liability of approximately $17.4 million related to this matter. We expect to be indemnified by the prior owners for approximately $10.9 million of the total $12.6 million available indemnification related to this matter and have recorded this amount within other assets in our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2018. The net of these two amounts, $6.5 million, was recorded as a reduction in revenue in our consolidated statements of operations during 2017. As of December 31, 2018, $1.5 million of net receivables have been impacted by this payment suspension.

Compliance

From time to time, the Company performs internal reviews of claims data to identify potential improper payments. Any overpayments are recorded as a reduction in revenue in our consolidated statements of operations. As of December 31, 2018, we have recorded $5.6 million to accrued expenses in our consolidated balance sheet as a result of these reviews.

Operating Leases

We have leased office space at various locations under non-cancelable agreements that expire between 2019 and 2028, and require various minimum annual rentals. Our operating leases are for lease terms of one to ten years and may include, in addition to base rental amounts, certain landlord pass-through costs for our pro-rata share of the lessor’s real estate taxes, utilities and common area maintenance costs. Some of our operating leases contain escalation clauses, in which annual minimum base rentals increase over the term of the lease.

Total minimum rental commitments for leased office space as of December 31, 2018 are as follows (amounts in millions):




2019	$	23.3
2020	18.7
2021	13.2
2022	8.5
2023	5.2
Future years	9.8
Total	$	78.7

Rent expense for non-cancelable operating leases was $27.8 million, $28.6 million and $27.5 million for 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Insurance

We are obligated for certain costs associated with our insurance programs, including employee health, workers’ compensation and professional liability. While we maintain various insurance programs to cover these risks, we are self-insured for a substantial portion of our potential claims. We recognize our obligations associated with these costs, up to specified deductible limits in the period in which a claim is incurred, including with respect to both reported claims and claims incurred but not reported. These costs have generally been estimated based on historical data of our claims experience. Such estimates, and the resulting reserves, are reviewed and updated by us on a quarterly basis.

The following table presents details of our insurance programs, including amounts accrued for the periods indicated (amounts in millions) in accrued expenses in our accompanying balance sheets. The amounts accrued below represent our total estimated liability for individual claims that are less than our noted insurance coverage amounts, which can include outstanding claims and claims incurred but not reported.



	As of December 31,
Type of Insurance	2018			2017
Health insurance	$	12.4		$	14.1
Workers’ compensation	30.9			29.3
Professional liability	4.3			4.3
	47.6			47.7
Less: long-term portion	(1.1		)	(1.2		)
	$	46.5		$	46.5

Our health insurance has an exposure limit of $1.0 million for any individual covered life. Our workers compensation insurance has a retention limit of $0.5 million per incident and our professional liability insurance has a retention limit of $0.3 million per incident. Effective January 1, 2019, our workers compensation insurance retention limit will increase to $1.0 million per incident.

Severance

We have commitments related to our Key Executive Severance Plan applicable to a number of our senior executives, as well as the employment agreement entered into with our Chief Executive Officer, each of which generally commit us to pay severance benefits under certain circumstances.

Other

We are subject to various other types of claims and disputes arising in the ordinary course of our business. While the resolution of such issues is not presently determinable, we believe that the ultimate resolution of such matters will not have a significant effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.