XML 30 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.3

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Commitments and Contingent Liabilities In addition to commitments and obligations incurred in the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and legal proceedings, including claims from customers and vendors, pending and potential legal actions for damages, governmental investigations, and other matters. The Company and its affiliates are parties to the legal claims and proceedings described below and in Financial Note 17 to the Company’s 2023 Annual Report, which disclosure is incorporated in this footnote by this reference. The Company is vigorously defending itself against those claims and in those proceedings. Significant developments in those matters are described below. If the Company is unsuccessful in defending, or if it determines to settle, any of these matters, it may be required to pay substantial sums, be subject to injunction and/or be forced to change how it operates its business, which could have a material adverse impact on its financial position or results of operations. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss or a range of possible loss for the matters described below. Often, the Company is unable to determine that a loss is probable, or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss or a range of loss, for a claim because of the limited information available and the potential effects of future events and decisions by third parties, such as courts and regulators, that will determine the ultimate resolution of the claim. Many of the matters described are at preliminary stages, raise novel theories of liability, or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. It is not uncommon for claims to remain unresolved over many years. The Company reviews loss contingencies at least quarterly to determine whether the likelihood of loss has changed and whether it can make a reasonable estimate of the loss or range of loss. When the Company determines that a loss from a claim is probable and reasonably estimable, it records a liability for an estimated amount. The Company also provides disclosure when it is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed its recorded liability. Amounts included within “Claims and litigation charges, net” in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations consist of estimated loss contingencies related to opioid-related litigation matters. I. Litigation and Claims Involving Distribution of Controlled Substances The Company and its affiliates have been sued as defendants in many cases asserting claims related to distribution of controlled substances. They have been named as defendants along with other pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and retail pharmacies. The plaintiffs in these actions have included state attorneys general, county and municipal governments, school districts, tribal nations, hospitals, health and welfare funds, third-party payors, and individuals. These actions have been filed in state and federal courts throughout the U.S., and in Puerto Rico and Canada. They have sought monetary damages and other forms of relief based on a variety of causes of action, including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, as well as alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), state and federal controlled substances laws, and other statutes. Because of the many uncertainties associated with opioid-related litigation matters, the Company is not able to conclude that a liability is probable or provide a reasonable estimate for the range of ultimate possible loss for opioid-related litigation matters other than those for which an accrual is described below. State and Local Government Claims The Company and two other national pharmaceutical distributors (collectively “Distributors”) entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) and consent judgment with 48 states and their participating subdivisions, as well as the District of Columbia and all eligible territories (the “Settling Governmental Entities”). Approximately 2,300 cases have been dismissed. The Distributors did not admit liability or wrongdoing and do not waive any defenses pursuant to the Settlement. Under the Settlement, the Company has paid the Settling Governmental Entities approximately $1.5 billion as of September 30, 2023, and additionally will pay the Settling Governmental Entities up to approximately $6.3 billion through 2038. A minimum of 85% of the Settlement payments must be used by state and local governmental entities to remediate the opioid epidemic, while the remainder relates to plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs and will be paid out through 2030. Under the Settlement, the Distributors will establish a clearinghouse to consolidate their controlled-substance distribution data, which will be available to the settling U.S. states to use as part of their anti-diversion efforts. Alabama and West Virginia did not participate in the Settlement. Under a separate settlement agreement with Alabama and its subdivisions, the Company has paid approximately $61 million as of September 30, 2023, and additionally will pay approximately $113 million through 2031. The Company previously settled with the state of West Virginia in 2018, so West Virginia and its subdivisions were not eligible to participate in the Settlement. Under a separate settlement agreement, the Company has paid certain West Virginia subdivisions approximately $38 million as of September 30, 2023, and additionally will pay approximately $114 million through 2033. That agreement does not include school districts or the claims of Cabell County and the City of Huntington. After a trial, the claims of Cabell County and the City of Huntington, were decided in the Company’s favor on July 4, 2022. Those subdivisions appealed that decision. Some other state and local governmental subdivisions did not participate in the Settlement, including certain municipal governments, government hospitals, school districts, and government-affiliated third-party payors. The Company contends that those subdivisions’ claims are foreclosed by the Settlement or other dispositive defenses, but the subdivisions contend that their claims are not foreclosed. The City of Baltimore, Maryland, is one such subdivision, and a trial of its claims is scheduled to begin September 26, 2024. An accrual for the remaining governmental subdivision claims is reflected in the total estimated liability for opioid-related claims in a manner consistent with how Settlement amounts were allocated to Settling Governmental Entities. Native American Tribe Claims The Company also entered into settlement agreements for opioid-related claims of federally recognized Native American tribes. Under those agreements, the Company has paid the settling Native American tribes approximately $84 million as of September 30, 2023, and additionally will pay approximately $112 million through 2027. A minimum of 85% of the total settlement payments must be used by the settling Native American tribes to remediate the opioid epidemic. The Company’s estimated accrued liability for the opioid-related claims of U.S. governmental entities, including Native American tribes, was as follows:
(In millions) | September 30, 2023 |  | March 31, 2023
Current litigation liabilities (1) | $ | 516 |  |  | $ | 548 |
Long-term litigation liabilities | 6,128 |  |  | 6,625 |
Total litigation liabilities | $ | 6,644 |  |  | $ | 7,173 |
(1)These amounts, recorded in “Other accrued liabilities” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, are the amounts estimated to be paid within the next twelve months following each respective period end date. During the six months ended September 30, 2023, the Company made payments totaling $529 million associated with the Settlement and the separate settlement agreements for opioid-related claims discussed above. Non-Governmental Plaintiff Claims The Company is also a defendant in approximately 400 opioid-related cases brought in the U.S. by private plaintiffs, such as hospitals, health and welfare funds, third-party payors, and individuals. These claims, and those of private entities generally, are not included in the settlement agreements described above or in the charges recorded by the Company. One such case was brought by a group of individual plaintiffs in Glynn County, Georgia Superior Court seeking to recover for damages allegedly arising from their family members’ abuse of prescription opioids. Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc., CE19-00472. On March 1, 2023, the jury in that case returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including the Company. Plaintiffs have appealed. Canadian Plaintiff Claims The Company and its Canadian affiliate are also defendants in four opioid-related cases pending in Canada. These cases involve the claims of the provincial governments, a group representing indigenous people, as well as one case brought by an individual. Defense of Opioids Claims The Company believes it has valid legal defenses in all opioid-related matters, including claims not covered by settlement agreements, and it intends to mount a vigorous defense in such matters. Other than the settlement agreements and the U.S. governmental subdivision claims described above, the Company has not concluded a loss is probable in any of the matters; nor is any possible loss or range of loss reasonably estimable. An adverse judgment or negotiated resolution in any of these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or liquidity, or results of operations. II. Other Litigation and Claims On May 17, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by True Health Chiropractic Inc., alleging that McKesson sent unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 or JFPA, True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. CV-13-02219 (HG). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages from $500 to $1,500 per violation plus injunctive relief. True Health Chiropractic later amended its complaint, adding McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates as an additional named plaintiff and McKesson Technologies Inc. as a defendant. Both plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the TCPA by sending faxes that did not contain notices regarding how to opt out of receiving the faxes. On August 13, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. After class notice and the opt-out period, 9,490 fax numbers remain in the class, representing 48,769 faxes received. On October 8, 2021, the court de-certified the class citing the plaintiffs lacked class-wide proof identifying the manner of receipt, thus leaving two named Plaintiffs remaining in the case. On April 27, 2022, the Court found that the named Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to show Defendants willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA and therefore were not entitled to treble damages. The Court found McKesson liable for statutory damages in the amount of $6,500. The Company appealed the finding of liability and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of class certification and the ruling denying treble damages. On October 25, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court. On December 9, 2019, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the unsealing of a complaint filed by a relator, purportedly on behalf of the United States, 30 states, the District of Columbia, and two cities, alleging that from 2001 through 2010 US Oncology, Inc., an affiliate of the Company, repackaged and sold single-dose syringes of oncology medications in a manner that violated the federal False Claims Act and various state and local false claims statutes, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United States ex rel. Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. US Oncology, Inc., 19-cv-05125. The United States and the named states declined to intervene in the case. Relator filed an amended complaint on August 19, 2022. On September 8, 2023, US Oncology, Inc. ’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted. Relator has filed a notice of appeal. The separate related case against the Company itself, United States ex rel. Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 1:12-cv-06440, remains pending in the district court. III. Government Subpoenas and Investigations From time to time, the Company receives subpoenas or requests for information from various government agencies. The Company generally responds to such subpoenas and requests in a cooperative, thorough, and timely manner. These responses sometimes require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred by the Company. Such subpoenas and requests can lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of civil or criminal legal proceedings against the Company and other members of the health care industry, as well as to settlements of claims against the Company. The Company responds to these requests in the ordinary course of business.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration