COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
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; commercial and contract disputes; professional liability; employee-related matters; and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies and Medicare or Medicaid payers and MCOs 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 parties, including physicians and other healthcare providers. The Company works cooperatively to respond to appropriate requests for information. The Company also is 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 U.S. federal or state healthcare 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 healthcare field today. The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all statutes, regulations and other requirements applicable to its commercial laboratory operations and drug development support services. The healthcare diagnostics and drug development industries are, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of the applicable 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 in preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company records an aggregate legal reserve, which is determined using 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 and would exceed the aggregate legal reserve. 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 the proceedings 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 proceedings, however, 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, though 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 Hunter Labs 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 2011, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 97, which imposed a 10.0% Medi-Cal payment cut on most providers of healthcare services, including clinical laboratories. In 2012, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1494, which directed the Department of Healthcare Services (DHCS) to establish new reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal commercial laboratory services based on payments made to California clinical laboratories for similar services by other third-party payers, and provided that until the new rates are set through this process, Medi-Cal payments for commercial laboratory services would be reduced (in addition to a 10.0% payment reduction imposed by Assembly Bill No. 97 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 80.0% of the lowest maximum allowance established under the Medicare program. Under the terms of the Hunter Labs Settlement Agreement, the enactment of this California legislation terminated the Company's reporting obligations (or obligation to provide a discount in lieu of reporting) under that agreement. In April 2015, CMS approved a 10.0% payment reduction under Assembly Bill No. 1494. The new rate methodology established new rates that were effective July 1, 2015, but these new rates were not entered into the state computer system until February 2016. The 2016 rates have been implemented. Recoupments associated with these changes are anticipated, but have not begun. 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 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General's regional office in New York. On August 17, 2011, the United States District Court for 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 U.S. government nor any state government has intervened in the lawsuit. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in October 2014 and Plaintiff was granted the right to replead. On January 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint under seal and to vacate the briefing schedule for the Company's motion to dismiss, while the government reviews the amended complaint. The Court granted the motion and vacated the briefing dates. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint under seal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. In addition, the Company has received various other subpoenas since 2007 related to Medicaid billing. 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 lawsuit, 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. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was denied in February 2015. In December 2016, the Court granted the Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In April 2017, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 19, 2017, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement in Principle, and the settlement is currently being finalized. Should the settlement not be finalized, the Company will vigorously defend the remaining claims in 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 State of Georgia filed a Notice of Declination on August 13, 2012, before the Company was served with the Complaint. 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. On March 14, 2014, the Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted. The Plaintiffs repled their complaint, and the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In May 2015, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' anti-kickback claim and remanded the remaining state law claims to the State Court of Fulton County. In July 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss these remaining claims. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's Motion to Dismiss in August 2015. Also, the State of Georgia filed a brief as amicus curiae. 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 alleged 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 sought injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. In June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied. The Plaintiff appealed the denial of Class Certification, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the Motion for Class Certification on January 20, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the parties reached a settlement of the Plaintiff's individual claim, and the lawsuit was dismissed on July 26, 2017. 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 lawsuit alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. In September of 2014, Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification was denied. In January of 2015, the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On May 3, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision and order reversing the District Court’s denial of class certification. The Eighth Circuit remanded the matter for further proceedings. On December 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for Class Certification. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff has appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. In December 2014, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand issued pursuant to the U.S. False Claims Act from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for South Carolina, which requests information regarding remuneration and services provided by the Company to physicians who also received draw and processing/handling fees from competitor laboratories Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. and Singulex, Inc. The Company is cooperating with the request. Prior to the Company’s acquisition of Sequenom, between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the acquisition transaction. The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its Board of Directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. In connection with the settlement, Sequenom agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders. In September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action. On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff and approving Mr. Reilly’s selection of lead counsel. The parties agree that the prior MOU has been terminated. The Court has set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated Amended Complaint and briefing for the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and Senior Clinical Research Associates employed by Covance Inc. in California. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On May 3, 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California remanded the case back to the Superior Court. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On February 7, 2017, Sequenom received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) relating to an SEC investigation into the trading activity of Sequenom shares in connection with the Company’s July 2016 announcement regarding the Sequenom merger. On March 7, 2017, the Company received a similar subpoena. The Company is cooperating with these requests. On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company’s patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Strike Class Allegation; this motion is currently pending. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On May 24, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination Management Services, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that the Company misclassified phlebotomists as independent contractors through an arrangement with the co-Defendant temporary staffing agency. The complaint further alleges that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. 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, 2017, the Company had provided letters of credit aggregating approximately $66.0, 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; commercial and contract disputes; professional liability; employee-related matters; and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies and Medicare or Medicaid payers and MCOs 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 parties, including physicians and other healthcare providers. The Company works cooperatively to respond to appropriate requests for information.

The Company also is 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 U.S. federal or state healthcare 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 healthcare field today.

The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all statutes, regulations and other requirements applicable to its commercial laboratory operations and drug development support services. The healthcare diagnostics and drug development industries are, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of the applicable 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 in preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company records an aggregate legal reserve, which is determined using 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 and would exceed the aggregate legal reserve. 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 the proceedings 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 proceedings, however, 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, though 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 Hunter Labs 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 2011, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 97, which imposed a 10.0% Medi-Cal payment cut on most providers of healthcare services, including clinical laboratories. In 2012, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1494, which directed the Department of Healthcare Services (DHCS) to establish new reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal commercial laboratory services based on payments made to California clinical laboratories for similar services by other third-party payers, and provided that until the new rates are set through this process, Medi-Cal payments for commercial laboratory services would be reduced (in addition to a 10.0% payment reduction imposed by Assembly Bill No. 97 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 80.0% of the lowest maximum allowance established under the Medicare program. Under the terms of the Hunter Labs Settlement Agreement, the enactment of this California legislation terminated the Company's reporting obligations (or obligation to provide a discount in lieu of reporting) under that agreement. In April 2015, CMS approved a 10.0% payment reduction under Assembly Bill No. 1494. The new rate methodology established new rates that were effective July 1, 2015, but these new rates were not entered into the state computer system until February 2016. The 2016 rates have been implemented. Recoupments associated with these changes are anticipated, but have not begun. 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 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General's regional office in New York. On August 17, 2011, the United States District Court for 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 U.S. government nor any state government has intervened in the lawsuit. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in October 2014 and Plaintiff was granted the right to replead. On January 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint under seal and to vacate the briefing schedule for the Company's motion to dismiss, while the government reviews the amended complaint. The Court granted the motion and vacated the briefing dates. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint under seal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

In addition, the Company has received various other subpoenas since 2007 related to Medicaid billing. 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 lawsuit, 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. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was denied in February 2015. In December 2016, the Court granted the Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In April 2017, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 19, 2017, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement in Principle, and the settlement is currently being finalized. Should the settlement not be finalized, the Company will vigorously defend the remaining claims in 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 State of Georgia filed a Notice of Declination on August 13, 2012, before the Company was served with the Complaint. 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. On March 14, 2014, the Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted. The Plaintiffs repled their complaint, and the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In May 2015, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' anti-kickback claim and remanded the remaining state law claims to the State Court of Fulton County. In July 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss these remaining claims. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's Motion to Dismiss in August 2015. Also, the State of Georgia filed a brief as amicus curiae. 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 alleged 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 sought injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. In June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied. The Plaintiff appealed the denial of Class Certification, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the Motion for Class Certification on January 20, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the parties reached a settlement of the Plaintiff's individual claim, and the lawsuit was dismissed on July 26, 2017.

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 lawsuit alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. In September of 2014, Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification was denied. In January of 2015, the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On May 3, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision and order reversing the District Court’s denial of class certification. The Eighth Circuit remanded the matter for further proceedings. On December 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for Class Certification. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff has appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

In December 2014, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand issued pursuant to the U.S. False Claims Act from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for South Carolina, which requests information regarding remuneration and services provided by the Company to physicians who also received draw and processing/handling fees from competitor laboratories Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. and Singulex, Inc. The Company is cooperating with the request.

Prior to the Company’s acquisition of Sequenom, between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the acquisition transaction. The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its Board of Directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. In connection with the settlement, Sequenom agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders. In September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action. On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff and approving Mr. Reilly’s selection of lead counsel. The parties agree that the prior MOU has been terminated. The Court has set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated Amended Complaint and briefing for the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and Senior Clinical Research Associates employed by Covance Inc. in California. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On May 3, 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California remanded the case back to the Superior Court. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On February 7, 2017, Sequenom received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) relating to an SEC investigation into the trading activity of Sequenom shares in connection with the Company’s July 2016 announcement regarding the Sequenom merger. On March 7, 2017, the Company received a similar subpoena. The Company is cooperating with these requests.

On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company’s patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Strike Class Allegation; this motion is currently pending. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On May 24, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination Management Services, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that the Company misclassified phlebotomists as independent contractors through an arrangement with the co-Defendant temporary staffing agency. The complaint further alleges that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. 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, 2017, the Company had provided letters of credit aggregating approximately $66.0, 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.