COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation (including those described in more detail below), arising in the ordinary course of business. Some of these actions involve claims that are substantial in amount. These matters include, but are not limited to, intellectual property disputes, professional liability, employee related matters, and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies and Medicare or Medicaid payers and managed care payers reviewing billing practices or requesting comment on allegations of billing irregularities that are brought to their attention through billing audits or third parties. The Company receives civil investigative demands or other inquiries from various governmental bodies in the ordinary course of its business. Such inquiries can relate to the Company or other healthcare providers. The Company works cooperatively to respond to appropriate requests for information. The Company is also named from time to time in suits brought under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and comparable state laws. These suits typically allege that the Company has made false statements and/or certifications in connection with claims for payment from federal or state health care programs. The suits may remain under seal (hence, unknown to the Company) for some time while the government decides whether to intervene on behalf of the qui tam plaintiff. Such claims are an inevitable part of doing business in the health care field today. The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all statutes, regulations and other requirements applicable to its clinical laboratory operations. The clinical laboratory testing industry is, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of these statutes and regulations. There can be no assurance, therefore, that the applicable statutes and regulations will not be interpreted or applied by a prosecutorial, regulatory or judicial authority in a manner that would adversely affect the Company. Potential sanctions for violation of these statutes and regulations include significant fines, the loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations, and/or exclusion from participation in government programs. Many of the current claims and legal actions against the Company are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company records an aggregate legal reserve, which is determined using actuarial calculations based on historical loss rates and assessment of trends experienced in settlements and defense costs. In accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 450, “Contingencies”, the Company establishes reserves for judicial, regulatory, and arbitration matters outside the aggregate legal reserve if and when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. When loss contingencies are not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish separate reserves. The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably probable loss for cases described in more detail below in which damages either have not been specified or, in the Company's judgment, are unsupported and/or exaggerated and (i) the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (iv) there are novel legal issues to be presented. For these cases, although the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, the outcomes could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. As previously reported, the Company reached a settlement in the previously disclosed lawsuit, California ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. (“Hunter Labs Settlement Agreement”), to avoid the uncertainty and costs associated with prolonged litigation. Pursuant to the executed settlement agreement, the Company recorded a litigation settlement expense of $34.5 in the second quarter of 2011 (net of a previously recorded reserve of $15.0) and paid the settlement amount of $49.5 in the third quarter of 2011. The Company also agreed to certain reporting obligations regarding its pricing for a limited time period and, at the option of the Company in lieu of such reporting obligations, to provide Medi-Cal with a discount from Medi-Cal's otherwise applicable maximum reimbursement rate from November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012. In June of 2012, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1494, Section 9 of which directs the Department of Health Care Services ("DHCS") to establish new reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal clinical laboratory services that will be based on payments made to California clinical laboratories for similar services by other third-party payers. With stakeholder input, DHCS established data elements and a format for laboratories to report payment data from comparable third-party payers. After reviewing the submitted data, DHCS will propose new reimbursement rates and solicit stakeholder input before their implementation. The bill provides that until the new rates are set through this process, Medi-Cal payments for clinical laboratory services will be reduced (in addition to a 10% payment reduction imposed by statute in 2011) by “up to 10 percent” for tests with dates of service on or after July 1, 2012, with a cap on payments set at 80% of the lowest maximum allowance established under the federal Medicare program. Under the terms of the Hunter Labs Settlement Agreement, the enactment of this new California legislation terminated the Company's reporting obligations (or obligation to provide a discount in lieu of reporting) under that agreement. On March 28, 2014, Assembly Bill No. 1124 extended the implementation deadline of new regulations until June 30, 2016. Taken together, these changes are not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated revenues or results of operations. As previously reported, the Company responded to an October 2007 subpoena from the United States Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General's regional office in New York. On August 17, 2011, the Southern District of New York unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit, United States of America ex rel. NPT Associates v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, which alleges that the Company offered UnitedHealthcare kickbacks in the form of discounts in return for Medicare business. The Plaintiff's third amended complaint further alleges that the Company's billing practices violated the false claims acts of fourteen states and the District of Columbia. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. Neither the United States government nor any state government has intervened in the lawsuit. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. In addition, the Company has received various other subpoenas since 2007 related to Medicaid billing. In February 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Virginia Medicaid. In April of 2013, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General closed its investigation. In October 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Michigan Department of Attorney General seeking documents related to its billing to Michigan Medicaid. In June 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Florida Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Florida Medicaid. In October 2013, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the State of Texas Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Texas Medicaid. The Company is cooperating with these requests. On November 4, 2013, the State of Florida through the Office of the Attorney General filed an Intervention Complaint in a False Claims Act lawsuit, State of Florida ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC and Chris Riedel v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County. The complaint, originally filed by a competitor laboratory, alleges that the Company overcharged Florida’s Medicaid program. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney’s fees, and legal expenses. On January 3, 2014, the Company filed a Petition for the Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of an Existing Rule against the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”). The Petition sought the invalidity of Rule 59G-5.110(2) of the Florida Administrative Code, which was relied upon by the Attorney General in its Intervention Complaint. On March 28, 2014, an Administrative Law Judge for the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings issued an order finding that Rule 59G-5.110(2) of the Florida Administrative Code was invalid. In the interim, the Attorney General filed a First Amended Intervention Complaint on January 30, 2014. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On May 2, 2013, the Company was served with a False Claims Act lawsuit, State of Georgia ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC and Chris Riedel v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., filed in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. The lawsuit, filed by a competitor laboratory, alleges that the Company overcharged Georgia's Medicaid program. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The government filed a notice declining to intervene in the case. On March 14, 2014, the Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted. The Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking leave to replead their complaint. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On August 19, 2013, the Company was served with a False Claims Act lawsuit, Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC and Chris Riedel v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. The lawsuit, filed by a competitor laboratory, alleges that the Company overcharged Virginia’s Medicaid program. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The government filed a notice declining to intervene in the case. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted and the Plaintiffs were granted the right to replead their complaint. An amended complaint was filed and the Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted on March 18, 2014. The Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit on appeal. In October 2011, a putative stockholder of the Company made a letter demand through his counsel for inspection of documents related to policies and procedures concerning the Company's Board of Directors' oversight and monitoring of the Company's billing and claim submission process. The letter also sought documents prepared for or by the Board regarding allegations from the California ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., lawsuit and documents reviewed and relied upon by the Board in connection with the settlement of that lawsuit. The Company responded to the request pursuant to Delaware law. On November 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from United States Senators Baucus and Grassley requesting information regarding the Company's relationships with its largest managed care customers. The letter requests information about the Company's contracts and financial data regarding its managed care customers. Company representatives met with Senate Finance Committee staff after receiving the request and subsequently produced documents in response. The Company continues to cooperate with the request for information. On February 27, 2012, the Company was served with a False Claims Act lawsuit, United States ex rel. Margaret Brown v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Tri-State Clinical Laboratory Services, LLC, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants submitted false claims for payment for laboratory testing services performed as a result of financial relationships that violated the federal Stark and anti-kickback laws. The Company owned 50% of Tri-State Clinical Laboratory Services, LLC, which was dissolved in June of 2011 pursuant to a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The United States government has not intervened in the lawsuit. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to preserve DNA samples allegedly entrusted to the Defendants and thereby breached a written agreement with Plaintiff and violated state laws. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual, double and treble damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the Defendants violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under TCPA, and injunctive relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et. al., related to overtime pay. After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit, and the consolidated lawsuit is now pending in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the consolidated lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. On March 24, 2014, the Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss due to technical deficiencies in the pleading of the Plaintiffs' claims, but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to cure the defects. Plaintiffs have subsequently filed an amended complaint. The complaint seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. The Company is also a defendant in two additional putative class action lawsuits alleging similar claims to the Bohlander/Andres consolidated lawsuit. The lawsuit Rachel Rabanes v. California Laboratory Sciences, LLC, et al., was filed in April 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, and the lawsuit Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA LabCorp, was filed in June 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. In these lawsuits, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated employees that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. The complaints seek monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend these lawsuits. On December 17, 2010, the Company was served with a lawsuit, Oliver Wuth, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the State Superior Court of King County, Washington. The lawsuit alleges that the Company was negligent in the handling of a prenatal genetic test order that allegedly resulted in the parents being given incorrect information. The matter was tried to a jury beginning on October 21, 2013. On December 10, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in in Plaintiffs’ favor in the amount of $50.0, with 50% of liability apportioned to the Company and 50% of liability apportioned to co-Defendant Valley Medical Center. The Company filed post-judgment motions for a new trial, which were denied, and is vigorously pursuing an appeal of the judgment on multiple grounds. The Company carries self-insurance reserves and excess liability insurance sufficient to cover the potential liability in this case. On July 3, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit, John Wisekal, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Darien Wisekal v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Glenda C. Mixon, filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the Company misread a Pap test. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The matter was tried to a jury beginning on April 1, 2014. On April 17, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $20.8, with non-economic damages reduced by 25% to account for the Plaintiff's negligence, for a final verdict of $15.8. The Company filed post-trial motions. On July 28, 2014, the Court granted the Company’s Motion for Remittitur and reduced the jury’s non-economic damages award to $5.0, reduced by 25.0% for the Plaintiff’s negligence. Accordingly, the total judgment is $4.4. The Plaintiff has ten days to accept the remitted amounts, or the Court will order a new trial on the issue of damages only. On June 17, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Michael Dickerson v. Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by placing non-emergency telephone calls to cellular telephones without the recipients’ prior consent or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under TCPA, and injunctive relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On July 9, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”) by allegedly providing credit card expiration date information on an electronically printed credit card receipt. The lawsuit seeks statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Under the Company's present insurance programs, coverage is obtained for catastrophic exposure as well as those risks required to be insured by law or contract. The Company is responsible for the uninsured portion of losses related primarily to general, professional and vehicle liability, certain medical costs and workers' compensation. The self-insured retentions are on a per occurrence basis without any aggregate annual limit. Provisions for losses expected under these programs are recorded based upon the Company's estimates of the aggregated liability of claims incurred. As of June 30, 2014, the Company had provided letters of credit aggregating approximately $42.5, primarily in connection with certain insurance programs. The Company's availability under its Revolving Credit Facility is reduced by the amount of these letters of credit.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation (including those described in more detail below), arising in the ordinary course of business. Some of these actions involve claims that are substantial in amount. These matters include, but are not limited to, intellectual property disputes, professional liability, employee related matters, and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies and Medicare or Medicaid payers and managed care payers reviewing billing practices or requesting comment on allegations of billing irregularities that are brought to their attention through billing audits or third parties. The Company receives civil investigative demands or other inquiries from various governmental bodies in the ordinary course of its business. Such inquiries can relate to the Company or other healthcare providers. The Company works cooperatively to respond to appropriate requests for information.

The Company is also named from time to time in suits brought under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and comparable state laws. These suits typically allege that the Company has made false statements and/or certifications in connection with claims for payment from federal or state health care programs. The suits may remain under seal (hence, unknown to the Company) for some time while the government decides whether to intervene on behalf of the qui tam plaintiff. Such claims are an inevitable part of doing business in the health care field today.

The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all statutes, regulations and other requirements applicable to its clinical laboratory operations. The clinical laboratory testing industry is, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of these statutes and regulations. There can be no assurance, therefore, that the applicable statutes and regulations will not be interpreted or applied by a prosecutorial, regulatory or judicial authority in a manner that would adversely affect the Company. Potential sanctions for violation of these statutes and regulations include significant fines, the loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations, and/or exclusion from participation in government programs.

Many of the current claims and legal actions against the Company are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company records an aggregate legal reserve, which is determined using actuarial calculations based on historical loss rates and assessment of trends experienced in settlements and defense costs. In accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 450, “Contingencies”, the Company establishes reserves for judicial, regulatory, and arbitration matters outside the aggregate legal reserve if and when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. When loss contingencies are not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish separate reserves.

The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably probable loss for cases described in more detail below in which damages either have not been specified or, in the Company's judgment, are unsupported and/or exaggerated and (i) the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (iv) there are novel legal issues to be presented. For these cases, although the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, the outcomes could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

As previously reported, the Company reached a settlement in the previously disclosed lawsuit, California ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. (“Hunter Labs Settlement Agreement”), to avoid the uncertainty and costs associated with prolonged litigation. Pursuant to the executed settlement agreement, the Company recorded a litigation settlement expense of $34.5 in the second quarter of 2011 (net of a previously recorded reserve of $15.0) and paid the settlement amount of $49.5 in the third quarter of 2011. The Company also agreed to certain reporting obligations regarding its pricing for a limited time period and, at the option of the Company in lieu of such reporting obligations, to provide Medi-Cal with a discount from Medi-Cal's otherwise applicable maximum reimbursement rate from November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012. In June of 2012, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1494, Section 9 of which directs the Department of Health Care Services ("DHCS") to establish new reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal clinical laboratory services that will be based on payments made to California clinical laboratories for similar services by other third-party payers. With stakeholder input, DHCS established data elements and a format for laboratories to report payment data from comparable third-party payers. After reviewing the submitted data, DHCS will propose new reimbursement rates and solicit stakeholder input before their implementation. The bill provides that until the new rates are set through this process, Medi-Cal payments for clinical laboratory services will be reduced (in addition to a 10% payment reduction imposed by statute in 2011) by “up to 10 percent” for tests with dates of service on or after July 1, 2012, with a cap on payments set at 80% of the lowest maximum allowance established under the federal Medicare program. Under the terms of the Hunter Labs Settlement Agreement, the enactment of this new California legislation terminated the Company's reporting obligations (or obligation to provide a discount in lieu of reporting) under that agreement. On March 28, 2014, Assembly Bill No. 1124 extended the implementation deadline of new regulations until June 30, 2016. Taken together, these changes are not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated revenues or results of operations.

As previously reported, the Company responded to an October 2007 subpoena from the United States Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General's regional office in New York. On August 17, 2011, the Southern District of New York unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit, United States of America ex rel. NPT Associates v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, which alleges that the Company offered UnitedHealthcare kickbacks in the form of discounts in return for Medicare business. The Plaintiff's third amended complaint further alleges that the Company's billing practices violated the false claims acts of fourteen states and the District of Columbia. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. Neither the United States government nor any state government has intervened in the lawsuit. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

In addition, the Company has received various other subpoenas since 2007 related to Medicaid billing. In February 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Virginia Medicaid. In April of 2013, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General closed its investigation. In October 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Michigan Department of Attorney General seeking documents related to its billing to Michigan Medicaid. In June 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Florida Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Florida Medicaid. In October 2013, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the State of Texas Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Texas Medicaid. The Company is cooperating with these requests.

On November 4, 2013, the State of Florida through the Office of the Attorney General filed an Intervention Complaint in a False Claims Act lawsuit, State of Florida ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC and Chris Riedel v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County. The complaint, originally filed by a competitor laboratory, alleges that the Company overcharged Florida’s Medicaid program. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney’s fees, and legal expenses. On January 3, 2014, the Company filed a Petition for the Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of an Existing Rule against the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”). The Petition sought the invalidity of Rule 59G-5.110(2) of the Florida Administrative Code, which was relied upon by the Attorney General in its Intervention Complaint. On March 28, 2014, an Administrative Law Judge for the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings issued an order finding that Rule 59G-5.110(2) of the Florida Administrative Code was invalid. In the interim, the Attorney General filed a First Amended Intervention Complaint on January 30, 2014. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On May 2, 2013, the Company was served with a False Claims Act lawsuit, State of Georgia ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC and Chris Riedel v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., filed in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. The lawsuit, filed by a competitor laboratory, alleges that the Company overcharged Georgia's Medicaid program. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The government filed a notice declining to intervene in the case. On March 14, 2014, the Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted. The Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking leave to replead their complaint. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On August 19, 2013, the Company was served with a False Claims Act lawsuit, Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC and Chris Riedel v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. The lawsuit, filed by a competitor laboratory, alleges that the Company overcharged Virginia’s Medicaid program. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The government filed a notice declining to intervene in the case. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted and the Plaintiffs were granted the right to replead their complaint. An amended complaint was filed and the Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted on March 18, 2014. The Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit on appeal.

In October 2011, a putative stockholder of the Company made a letter demand through his counsel for inspection of documents related to policies and procedures concerning the Company's Board of Directors' oversight and monitoring of the Company's billing and claim submission process. The letter also sought documents prepared for or by the Board regarding allegations from the California ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., lawsuit and documents reviewed and relied upon by the Board in connection with the settlement of that lawsuit. The Company responded to the request pursuant to Delaware law.

On November 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from United States Senators Baucus and Grassley requesting information regarding the Company's relationships with its largest managed care customers. The letter requests information about the Company's contracts and financial data regarding its managed care customers. Company representatives met with Senate Finance Committee staff after receiving the request and subsequently produced documents in response. The Company continues to cooperate with the request for information.

On February 27, 2012, the Company was served with a False Claims Act lawsuit, United States ex rel. Margaret Brown v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Tri-State Clinical Laboratory Services, LLC, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants submitted false claims for payment for laboratory testing services performed as a result of financial relationships that violated the federal Stark and anti-kickback laws. The Company owned 50% of Tri-State Clinical Laboratory Services, LLC, which was dissolved in June of 2011 pursuant to a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The United States government has not intervened in the lawsuit. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to preserve DNA samples allegedly entrusted to the Defendants and thereby breached a written agreement with Plaintiff and violated state laws. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual, double and treble damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the Defendants violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under TCPA, and injunctive relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et. al., related to overtime pay. After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit, and the consolidated lawsuit is now pending in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the consolidated lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. On March 24, 2014, the Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss due to technical deficiencies in the pleading of the Plaintiffs' claims, but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to cure the defects. Plaintiffs have subsequently filed an amended complaint. The complaint seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

The Company is also a defendant in two additional putative class action lawsuits alleging similar claims to the Bohlander/Andres consolidated lawsuit. The lawsuit Rachel Rabanes v. California Laboratory Sciences, LLC, et al., was filed in April 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, and the lawsuit Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA LabCorp, was filed in June 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. In these lawsuits, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated employees that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. The complaints seek monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend these lawsuits.

On December 17, 2010, the Company was served with a lawsuit, Oliver Wuth, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the State Superior Court of King County, Washington. The lawsuit alleges that the Company was negligent in the handling of a prenatal genetic test order that allegedly resulted in the parents being given incorrect information. The matter was tried to a jury beginning on October 21, 2013. On December 10, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in in Plaintiffs’ favor in the amount of $50.0, with 50% of liability apportioned to the Company and 50% of liability apportioned to co-Defendant Valley Medical Center. The Company filed post-judgment motions for a new trial, which were denied, and is vigorously pursuing an appeal of the judgment on multiple grounds. The Company carries self-insurance reserves and excess liability insurance sufficient to cover the potential liability in this case.

On July 3, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit, John Wisekal, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Darien Wisekal v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Glenda C. Mixon, filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the Company misread a Pap test. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The matter was tried to a jury beginning on April 1, 2014. On April 17, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $20.8, with non-economic damages reduced by 25% to account for the Plaintiff's negligence, for a final verdict of $15.8. The Company filed post-trial motions. On July 28, 2014, the Court granted the Company’s Motion for Remittitur and reduced the jury’s non-economic damages award to $5.0, reduced by 25.0% for the Plaintiff’s negligence. Accordingly, the total judgment is $4.4. The Plaintiff has ten days to accept the remitted amounts, or the Court will order a new trial on the issue of damages only.

On June 17, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Michael Dickerson v. Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc. filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by placing non-emergency telephone calls to cellular telephones without the recipients’ prior consent or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under TCPA, and injunctive relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On July 9, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”) by allegedly providing credit card expiration date information on an electronically printed credit card receipt. The lawsuit seeks statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Under the Company's present insurance programs, coverage is obtained for catastrophic exposure as well as those risks required to be insured by law or contract. The Company is responsible for the uninsured portion of losses related primarily to general, professional and vehicle liability, certain medical costs and workers' compensation. The self-insured retentions are on a per occurrence basis without any aggregate annual limit. Provisions for losses expected under these programs are recorded based upon the Company's estimates of the aggregated liability of claims incurred. As of June 30, 2014, the Company had provided letters of credit aggregating approximately $42.5, primarily in connection with certain insurance programs. The Company's availability under its Revolving Credit Facility is reduced by the amount of these letters of credit.