COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings We are involved in the following legal actions: United States Senate Committee on Finance Inquiry On May 12, 2010, we received a letter of inquiry from the Senate Finance Committee requesting documents and information relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits and therapy utilization trends. A similar letter was sent to the other major publicly traded home health care companies. We cooperated with the Committee with respect to this inquiry. On October 3, 2011, the Committee publicly issued a report titled “Staff Report on Home Health and the Medicare Therapy Threshold.” The Committee recommended that the CMS “must move toward taking therapy out of the payment model.” We believe that the issuance of the report concludes the Committee's inquiry, but are not in a position to speculate on the potential for future legislative or oversight action by the Committee. Securities Class Action Lawsuits On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the “Court”) against the Company and certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the Court on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010. On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal Derivative Actions (described immediately below) for pre-trial purposes. In the same order, the Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (together, the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”) for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit (described below) with the putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes. On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages. All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June 28, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on April 9, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The parties' appellate briefing is complete and oral argument was held on March 31, 2014. While the Company will seek to have the Court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss affirmed on appeal, no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the appeals process. ERISA Class Action Lawsuit On September 27, 2010 and October 22, 2010, separate putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company, certain of our current and former senior executives and members of our 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee. The suits alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) since January 1, 2006 and July 1, 2007, respectively. The plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) Plan. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's participants by causing the 401(k) Plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during the respective class periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky and imprudent retirement investment because of our alleged improper business practices. The complaints sought a determination that the actions may be maintained as a class action, an award of unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief. As noted above, on December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative ERISA class actions with the putative securities class actions and derivative actions for pre-trial purposes. In addition, on December 10, 2010, the Court appointed interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel in the ERISA class action. On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell (the “Co-ERISA Plaintiffs”), filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “ERISA Complaint”), which superseded the earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints. The ERISA Complaint sought a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008 through present. All of the defendants moved to dismiss the ERISA Complaint. On November 5, 2013, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the ERISA class action lawsuits on a class-wide basis under which we would make a payment of $1.2 million (which we correctly anticipated would be paid by our insurance carrier) and provide additional non-monetary benefits to 401(k) Plan participants. We then negotiated a formal settlement agreement with the Co-ERISA Plaintiffs and on December 13, 2013, submitted it to the Court for preliminary and final approval. The formal settlement agreement described how the $1.2 million settlement payment would be allocated among the putative class of 401(k) Plan participants after certain expenses and fees were deducted. On April 14, 2014, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval and scheduled a final fairness hearing for July 22, 2014. Our insurance carrier funded the $1.2 million settlement pool shortly after the entry of the April 14, 2014 order. On July 22, 2014, the Court conducted a fairness hearing. On July 24, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the settlement, dismissing the ERISA class action lawsuits with prejudice, certifying a settlement class and approving the release of all claims by the settlement class that were or could have been alleged in the matter. SEC Investigation On June 30, 2010, we received notice of a formal investigation from the SEC and received a subpoena for documents relating to the matters under review by the United States Senate Committee on Finance and other matters involving our operations. We cooperated with the SEC with respect to this investigation, and in June 2014 we were informed by the SEC staff that the investigation had been completed and that the staff did not intend to recommend any enforcement action by the SEC. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) Pursuant to False Claims Act and Stark Law Matters On September 27, 2010, we received a CID issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act. The CID requires the delivery of a wide range of documents and information relating to the Company's clinical and business operations, including reimbursement and billing claims submitted to Medicare for home health services, and related compliance activities. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2003. On April 26, 2011, we received a second CID related to the CID issued in September 2010, which generally covers the same time period as the previous CID and requires the production of additional documents. Such CIDs are often associated with previously filed qui tam actions, or lawsuits filed under seal under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Qui tam actions are brought by private plaintiffs suing on behalf of the federal government for alleged FCA violations. Subsequently, the Company and certain current and former employees received additional CIDs for additional documents and/or testimony. In May 2012, we made a disclosure to CMS under the agency's Stark Law Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol relating to certain services agreements between a subsidiary of ours and a large physician group. During some period of time since December 2007, the arrangements appear not to have complied in certain respects with an applicable exemption to the Stark Law referral prohibition. Medicare revenue earned as a result of referrals from the physician group from May 2008 to May 2012, the relevant four year “lookback” period under the Stark Law Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol, was approximately $4 million. On January 11, 2013, one of our subsidiaries received a CID from the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia seeking certain information relating to that subsidiary's relationship with this physician group. On October 4, 2013, we reached an agreement in principle to resolve both the U.S. Department of Justice investigation and the Stark Law Self-Referral matter. We agreed to this tentative settlement without any admission of wrongdoing to resolve these matters and to avoid the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation. On April 23, 2014, we entered into a settlement agreement to resolve both the U.S. Department of Justice investigation and the Stark Law Self-Referral matter. The settlement agreement contains no admissions of liability on our part. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, we paid the United States an initial payment in the amount of $116.5 million on May 2, 2014, representing the first installment of $115 million plus interest thereon due under the settlement agreement. A second installment of $35 million plus interest thereon will be payable on or prior to October 23, 2014. In consideration of our obligations under the settlement agreement and conditioned upon our full payment of the settlement amount, the United States agreed to release us from any civil or administrative monetary claim under the False Claims Act and various other statutes and legal theories for (a) claims involving home health services rendered by certain of our care centers from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 that the United States contended were (i) provided to patients who were not homebound, (ii) provided to patients lacking a need for skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy services, (iii) provided to patients without regard to medical necessity, or (iv) overbilled by upcoding patients' diagnoses, and (b) claims arising from our billings to the Medicare program during the period from April 1, 2008 through April 30, 2012 for home health services referred by a particular physician practice group while we were providing such practice group remuneration that was not consistent with fair market value in the form of patient care coordination services performed by our employees. The settlement agreement also resolved allegations made against us by various qui tam relators, who were required to dismiss their claims with prejudice. We were required to pay various relators' attorneys' fees and expenses in the aggregate sum of approximately $3.9 million. In addition, we will incur additional expenses in the future in connection with compliance measures mandated by the corporate integrity agreement discussed below. We have previously recorded an accrual for the settlement amount and added the amount of the relators' attorneys' fees to this accrual in the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In connection with the settlement agreement, on April 23, 2014, we entered into a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General-HHS. The corporate integrity agreement 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 corporate integrity agreement requires us to maintain our existing compliance program and compliance committee; provide certain compliance training; continue screening new and current employees against certain lists to ensure they are not ineligible to participate in federal health care programs; engage an independent review organization to perform certain auditing 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 Office of Inspector General-HHS. Upon breach of the corporate integrity agreement, 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. OIG Self-Disclosure In October 2012, we made a disclosure to the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (the “OIG”) pursuant to the OIG Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol regarding certain clinical documentation issues and eligibility regulatory requirements at two of our hospice care centers. These hospice care centers did not comply in some respects with certain state and Medicare hospice regulations including those requiring physicians to certify patient eligibility and requiring patient face-to-face encounters. We recorded an additional accrual of approximately $1 million during the three-month period ended September 30, 2013 increasing the total accrual to approximately $2 million as of September 30, 2013, where it remained at December 31, 2013. A final settlement agreement with OIG, pursuant to which we agreed to pay approximately $2 million to settle the matter, was executed on March 12, 2014. In September and October 2013, we made preliminary disclosures to OIG under the OIG's Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol regarding certain clinical documentation issues at one of our home health care centers. This care center appears to have not complied with certain Medicare home health regulations, including those relating to physician signature requirements and face-to-face documentation. We made a disclosure in March 2014 to OIG providing additional information relating to the information disclosed in the preliminary disclosures sent in September and October 2013. As of June 30, 2014, we have an accrual of approximately $1.9 million for this matter. Our review is ongoing, and we intend to cooperate with the OIG in its review of this matter. 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 forty 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. Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week over forty, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work, in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based on misclassification. On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling requesting that the statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this lawsuit is issued following conditional certification. Following a motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on December 3, 2013, the Court modified this order, holding that putative class members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29, 2012 through the date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' July 10, 2013 motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims and authorized issuance of notice to putative class members to provide them an opportunity to opt in to the action. On April 17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class members. The period within which putative class members were permitted to opt in to the action expired on July 16, 2014. 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, thereby misclassifying her as an exempt employee and entitling her to overtime pay. The plaintiff alleges violations of Federal and state law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of similar employees who were or are employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Illinois statute. On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay the case pending resolution of class certification issues and dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case referenced above. We are unable to assess the probable outcome or reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from the securities and wage and hour litigation described above. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities and wage and hour litigation matters. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the OIG Self-Disclosure, the securities and wage and hour matters described above or the impact of any of the inquiry or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate. We recognize that additional putative securities class action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to matters involving our home therapy visits and therapy utilization trends or other matters. 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. Third Party Audits 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 CMS conduct extensive review of claims data to identify potential improper payments under the Medicare program. In January 2010, our subsidiary that provides home health services in Dayton, Ohio received from a Medicare Program Safeguard Contractor (“PSC”) a request for records regarding 137 claims submitted by the subsidiary paid from January 2, 2008 through November 10, 2009 (the “Claim Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. Based on the PSC's findings for 114 of the claims, which were extrapolated to all claims for home health services provided by the Dayton subsidiary paid during the Claim Period, on March 9, 2011, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment of approximately $5.6 million. We dispute these findings, and our Dayton subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. Most recently, a consolidated administrative law judge (“ALJ”) hearing was held in late March 2013. In January 2014, the ALJ found fully in favor of our Dayton subsidiary on 74 appeals and partially in favor of our Dayton subsidiary on eight appeals. Taking into account the ALJ's decision, certain determinations that our Dayton subsidiary decided not to appeal as well as certain determinations made by the MAC, of the 114 claims that were originally extrapolated by the MAC, 76 claims have now been decided in favor of our Dayton subsidiary in full, 10 claims have been decided in favor of our Dayton subsidiary in part, and 28 claims have been decided against or not appealed by our Dayton subsidiary. The ALJ has ordered the MAC to recalculate the extrapolation amount based on the ALJ's decision. The Medicare Appeals Council can decide on its own motion to review the ALJ's decisions. As of June 30, 2014, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time. 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 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. Most recently, we have requested appeal hearings before an ALJ, which have been scheduled to occur on September 3, 2014, but no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the ALJ appeal. The current alleged extrapolated overpayment is $6.1 million. In the event we pay any amount of this alleged overpayment, we are indemnified by the prior owners of the hospice operations for amounts relating to the period prior to August 1, 2009. As of June 30, 2014, we have recorded no liability for this claim as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time. 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. Our health insurance has a retention limit of $0.9 million, our workers' compensation insurance has a retention limit of $0.5 million and our professional liability insurance has a retention limit of $0.3 million.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in the following legal actions:

United States Senate Committee on Finance Inquiry

On May 12, 2010, we received a letter of inquiry from the Senate Finance Committee requesting documents and information relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits and therapy utilization trends. A similar letter was sent to the other major publicly traded home health care companies. We cooperated with the Committee with respect to this inquiry.

On October 3, 2011, the Committee publicly issued a report titled “Staff Report on Home Health and the Medicare Therapy Threshold.” The Committee recommended that the CMS “must move toward taking therapy out of the payment model.” We believe that the issuance of the report concludes the Committee's inquiry, but are not in a position to speculate on the potential for future legislative or oversight action by the Committee.

Securities Class Action Lawsuits

On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the “Court”) against the Company and certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the Court on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal Derivative Actions (described immediately below) for pre-trial purposes. In the same order, the Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (together, the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”) for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit (described below) with the putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June 28, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The parties' appellate briefing is complete and oral argument was held on March 31, 2014. While the Company will seek to have the Court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss affirmed on appeal, no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the appeals process.

ERISA Class Action Lawsuit

On September 27, 2010 and October 22, 2010, separate putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company, certain of our current and former senior executives and members of our 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee. The suits alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) since January 1, 2006 and July 1, 2007, respectively. The plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) Plan. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's participants by causing the 401(k) Plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during the respective class periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky and imprudent retirement investment because of our alleged improper business practices. The complaints sought a determination that the actions may be maintained as a class action, an award of unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief. As noted above, on December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative ERISA class actions with the putative securities class actions and derivative actions for pre-trial purposes. In addition, on December 10, 2010, the Court appointed interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel in the ERISA class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell (the “Co-ERISA Plaintiffs”), filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “ERISA Complaint”), which superseded the earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints. The ERISA Complaint sought a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated participants in our 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008 through present. All of the defendants moved to dismiss the ERISA Complaint.

On November 5, 2013, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the ERISA class action lawsuits on a class-wide basis under which we would make a payment of $1.2 million (which we correctly anticipated would be paid by our insurance carrier) and provide additional non-monetary benefits to 401(k) Plan participants. We then negotiated a formal settlement agreement with the Co-ERISA Plaintiffs and on December 13, 2013, submitted it to the Court for preliminary and final approval. The formal settlement agreement described how the $1.2 million settlement payment would be allocated among the putative class of 401(k) Plan participants after certain expenses and fees were deducted. On April 14, 2014, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval and scheduled a final fairness hearing for July 22, 2014. Our insurance carrier funded the $1.2 million settlement pool shortly after the entry of the April 14, 2014 order.

On July 22, 2014, the Court conducted a fairness hearing. On July 24, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the settlement, dismissing the ERISA class action lawsuits with prejudice, certifying a settlement class and approving the release of all claims by the settlement class that were or could have been alleged in the matter.

SEC Investigation

On June 30, 2010, we received notice of a formal investigation from the SEC and received a subpoena for documents relating to the matters under review by the United States Senate Committee on Finance and other matters involving our operations. We cooperated with the SEC with respect to this investigation, and in June 2014 we were informed by the SEC staff that the investigation had been completed and that the staff did not intend to recommend any enforcement action by the SEC.

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) Pursuant to False Claims Act and Stark Law Matters

On September 27, 2010, we received a CID issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act. The CID requires the delivery of a wide range of documents and information relating to the Company's clinical and business operations, including reimbursement and billing claims submitted to Medicare for home health services, and related compliance activities. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2003. On April 26, 2011, we received a second CID related to the CID issued in September 2010, which generally covers the same time period as the previous CID and requires the production of additional documents. Such CIDs are often associated with previously filed qui tam actions, or lawsuits filed under seal under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Qui tam actions are brought by private plaintiffs suing on behalf of the federal government for alleged FCA violations. Subsequently, the Company and certain current and former employees received additional CIDs for additional documents and/or testimony.

In May 2012, we made a disclosure to CMS under the agency's Stark Law Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol relating to certain services agreements between a subsidiary of ours and a large physician group. During some period of time since December 2007, the arrangements appear not to have complied in certain respects with an applicable exemption to the Stark Law referral prohibition. Medicare revenue earned as a result of referrals from the physician group from May 2008 to May 2012, the relevant four year “lookback” period under the Stark Law Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol, was approximately $4 million. On January 11, 2013, one of our subsidiaries received a CID from the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia seeking certain information relating to that subsidiary's relationship with this physician group.

On October 4, 2013, we reached an agreement in principle to resolve both the U.S. Department of Justice investigation and the Stark Law Self-Referral matter. We agreed to this tentative settlement without any admission of wrongdoing to resolve these matters and to avoid the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation. On April 23, 2014, we entered into a settlement agreement to resolve both the U.S. Department of Justice investigation and the Stark Law Self-Referral matter. The settlement agreement contains no admissions of liability on our part.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, we paid the United States an initial payment in the amount of $116.5 million on May 2, 2014, representing the first installment of $115 million plus interest thereon due under the settlement agreement. A second installment of $35 million plus interest thereon will be payable on or prior to October 23, 2014.

In consideration of our obligations under the settlement agreement and conditioned upon our full payment of the settlement amount, the United States agreed to release us from any civil or administrative monetary claim under the False Claims Act and various other statutes and legal theories for (a) claims involving home health services rendered by certain of our care centers from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 that the United States contended were (i) provided to patients who were not homebound, (ii) provided to patients lacking a need for skilled nursing and/or skilled therapy services, (iii) provided to patients without regard to medical necessity, or (iv) overbilled by upcoding patients' diagnoses, and (b) claims arising from our billings to the Medicare program during the period from April 1, 2008 through April 30, 2012 for home health services referred by a particular physician practice group while we were providing such practice group remuneration that was not consistent with fair market value in the form of patient care coordination services performed by our employees.

The settlement agreement also resolved allegations made against us by various qui tam relators, who were required to dismiss their claims with prejudice. We were required to pay various relators' attorneys' fees and expenses in the aggregate sum of approximately $3.9 million. In addition, we will incur additional expenses in the future in connection with compliance measures mandated by the corporate integrity agreement discussed below.

We have previously recorded an accrual for the settlement amount and added the amount of the relators' attorneys' fees to this accrual in the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In connection with the settlement agreement, on April 23, 2014, we entered into a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General-HHS. The corporate integrity agreement 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 corporate integrity agreement requires us to maintain our existing compliance program and compliance committee; provide certain compliance training; continue screening new and current employees against certain lists to ensure they are not ineligible to participate in federal health care programs; engage an independent review organization to perform certain auditing 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 Office of Inspector General-HHS. Upon breach of the corporate integrity agreement, 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.

OIG Self-Disclosure

In October 2012, we made a disclosure to the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (the “OIG”) pursuant to the OIG Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol regarding certain clinical documentation issues and eligibility regulatory requirements at two of our hospice care centers. These hospice care centers did not comply in some respects with certain state and Medicare hospice regulations including those requiring physicians to certify patient eligibility and requiring patient face-to-face encounters. We recorded an additional accrual of approximately $1 million during the three-month period ended September 30, 2013 increasing the total accrual to approximately $2 million as of September 30, 2013, where it remained at December 31, 2013. A final settlement agreement with OIG, pursuant to which we agreed to pay approximately $2 million to settle the matter, was executed on March 12, 2014.

In September and October 2013, we made preliminary disclosures to OIG under the OIG's Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol regarding certain clinical documentation issues at one of our home health care centers. This care center appears to have not complied with certain Medicare home health regulations, including those relating to physician signature requirements and face-to-face documentation. We made a disclosure in March 2014 to OIG providing additional information relating to the information disclosed in the preliminary disclosures sent in September and October 2013. As of June 30, 2014, we have an accrual of approximately $1.9 million for this matter. Our review is ongoing, and we intend to cooperate with the OIG in its review of this matter.

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 forty 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. Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week over forty, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work, in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based on misclassification. On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling requesting that the statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this lawsuit is issued following conditional certification. Following a motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on December 3, 2013, the Court modified this order, holding that putative class members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29, 2012 through the date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' July 10, 2013 motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims and authorized issuance of notice to putative class members to provide them an opportunity to opt in to the action. On April 17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class members. The period within which putative class members were permitted to opt in to the action expired on July 16, 2014.

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, thereby misclassifying her as an exempt employee and entitling her to overtime pay. The plaintiff alleges violations of Federal and state law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of similar employees who were or are employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Illinois statute. On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay the case pending resolution of class certification issues and dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case referenced above.

We are unable to assess the probable outcome or reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from the securities and wage and hour litigation described above. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities and wage and hour litigation matters. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the OIG Self-Disclosure, the securities and wage and hour matters described above or the impact of any of the inquiry or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate.

We recognize that additional putative securities class action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to matters involving our home therapy visits and therapy utilization trends or other matters.

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.

Third Party Audits

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 CMS conduct extensive review of claims data to identify potential improper payments under the Medicare program.

In January 2010, our subsidiary that provides home health services in Dayton, Ohio received from a Medicare Program Safeguard Contractor (“PSC”) a request for records regarding 137 claims submitted by the subsidiary paid from January 2, 2008 through November 10, 2009 (the “Claim Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. Based on the PSC's findings for 114 of the claims, which were extrapolated to all claims for home health services provided by the Dayton subsidiary paid during the Claim Period, on March 9, 2011, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment of approximately $5.6 million. We dispute these findings, and our Dayton subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. Most recently, a consolidated administrative law judge (“ALJ”) hearing was held in late March 2013. In January 2014, the ALJ found fully in favor of our Dayton subsidiary on 74 appeals and partially in favor of our Dayton subsidiary on eight appeals. Taking into account the ALJ's decision, certain determinations that our Dayton subsidiary decided not to appeal as well as certain determinations made by the MAC, of the 114 claims that were originally extrapolated by the MAC, 76 claims have now been decided in favor of our Dayton subsidiary in full, 10 claims have been decided in favor of our Dayton subsidiary in part, and 28 claims have been decided against or not appealed by our Dayton subsidiary. The ALJ has ordered the MAC to recalculate the extrapolation amount based on the ALJ's decision. The Medicare Appeals Council can decide on its own motion to review the ALJ's decisions. As of June 30, 2014, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

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 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. Most recently, we have requested appeal hearings before an ALJ, which have been scheduled to occur on September 3, 2014, but no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the ALJ appeal. The current alleged extrapolated overpayment is $6.1 million. In the event we pay any amount of this alleged overpayment, we are indemnified by the prior owners of the hospice operations for amounts relating to the period prior to August 1, 2009. As of June 30, 2014, we have recorded no liability for this claim as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

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.

Our health insurance has a retention limit of $0.9 million, our workers' compensation insurance has a retention limit of $0.5 million and our professional liability insurance has a retention limit of $0.3 million.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details