XML 48 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.0.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company (and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates) 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 claims, employee-related matters, transaction-related disputes, securities and corporate law matters, and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies, 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 health care 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 biopharma laboratory services. These industries are, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of the applicable statutes and regulations. Therefore, the applicable statutes and regulations could 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 civil and criminal penalties, fines, the loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations, additional liabilities from third-party claims, 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 Financial Accounting Standards Board (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 reasonably estimable. When loss contingencies are not both probable and reasonably 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 adverse outcomes are probable and reasonably estimable, and it does not believe they will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements. The Company has received various subpoenas and other civil investigative demands related to Medicaid billing. 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 cooperated with this request. On October 5, 2018, the Company received a second Civil Investigative Demand from the State of Texas Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Texas Medicaid. The Company cooperated with this request. On January 26, 2021, the Company was notified that a qui tam Petition was pending under seal in the District Court, 250th Judicial District, Travis County, Texas, and that the State of Texas had intervened. On April 14, 2021, the Petition was unsealed. The Petition alleges that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement to Texas Medicaid that were higher than permitted under Texas Medicaid’s alleged “best price” regulations, and that the Company offered remuneration to Texas health care providers in the form of discounted pricing for certain laboratory testing services in exchange for the providers’ referral of Texas Medicaid business to the Company. The Petition seeks actual and double damages and civil penalties, as well as recovery of costs, attorney’s fees, and legal expenses. On August 1, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting the Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to the claim that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement to Texas Medicaid that were higher than permitted under Texas Medicaid’s alleged “best price” regulations. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Suit and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and, on November 11, 2022, the court entered a Judgment. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with respect to the court’s order granting the Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, referenced above. On December 31, 2024, the Texas Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the District Court’s order granting the Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgement. 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 appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On October 16, 2019, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit Court’s dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the lawsuit. The court held oral arguments on December 9, 2020. On May 26, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion approving the result of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal in favor of the Plaintiff. On or about October 31, 2024, Labcorp and the Plaintiff (on behalf of the putative class) entered into a Settlement Agreement. That settlement is awaiting preliminary approval by the court. On December 29, 2021, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Nathaniel J. Nolan, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company’s patient acknowledgement of estimated financial responsibility form is misleading. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment under the consumer protection laws of Nevada and Florida that the form is materially misleading and deceptive, an injunction barring the use of the form, damages on behalf of an alleged class, and attorney’s fees and expenses. On February 28, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims. On February 13, 2023, the court entered an order granting the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. On March 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. On April 10, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an order affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In October 2024, the claims were resolved pursuant to a settlement. On April 1, 2019, Covance Research Products was served with a Grand Jury Subpoena issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Miami, Florida requiring the production of documents related to the importation into the United States of live non-human primate shipments originating from or transiting through China, Cambodia, and/or Vietnam from April 1, 2014 through March 28, 2019. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ. On May 14, 2019, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), an external collection agency, notified the Company about a security incident AMCA experienced that may have involved certain personal information about some of the Company’s patients (the AMCA Incident). The Company referred patient balances to AMCA only when direct collection efforts were unsuccessful. The Company’s systems were not impacted by the AMCA Incident. Upon learning of the AMCA Incident, the Company promptly stopped sending new collection requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from continuing to work on any pending collection requests from the Company. AMCA informed the Company that it appeared that an unauthorized user had access to AMCA’s system between August 1, 2018, and March 30, 2019, and that AMCA could not rule out the possibility that personal information on AMCA’s system was at risk during that time period. Information on AMCA’s affected system from the Company may have included name, address, and balance information for the patient and person responsible for payment, along with the patient’s phone number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service. The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance information may have been included for some individuals, and because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number for some individuals may also have been affected. No ordered tests, laboratory test results, or diagnostic information from the Company were in the AMCA affected system. The Company notified individuals for whom it had a valid mailing address. For the individuals whose Social Security Number was affected, the notice included an offer to enroll in credit monitoring and identity protection services that was provided free of charge for 24 months. Twenty-three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company related to the AMCA Incident in various U.S. District Courts. Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against other health care providers who used AMCA. These lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey. On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. The consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the Company did not adequately protect its patients’ data and failed to timely notify those patients of the AMCA Incident. The Complaint asserted various causes of action, including but not limited to negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and the violation of state data protection statutes. The Complaint sought damages on behalf of a class of all affected Company customers. On January 22, 2020, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss all claims. On December 16, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. On March 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, and various state statutory claims, including a claim under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss certain claims of the Amended Complaint. On May 5, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. On November 1, 2024, Plaintiffs served their motion for class certification. The Company will vigorously defend the remaining claims in the multi-district litigation. The Company was served with a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Raymond Eugenio, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Lance Berberian, et al., filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on April 23, 2020. The complaint asserts derivative claims on the Company’s behalf against the Company’s board of directors and certain executive officers. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to ensure that the Company utilized proper cybersecurity safeguards and failed to implement a sufficient response to data security incidents, including the AMCA Incident. The complaint asserts derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks relief including damages, certain disclosures, and certain changes to the Company’s internal governance practices. On June 2, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Stay the lawsuit due to its overlap with the multi-district litigation referenced above. On July 2, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On July 14, 2020, the court entered an order staying the lawsuit pending the resolution of the multi-district litigation. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Certain governmental entities have requested information from the Company related to the AMCA Incident. The Company received a request for information from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services. On April 28, 2020, OCR notified the Company of the closure of its inquiry. The Company has also received requests from a multi-state group of state Attorneys General and is cooperating with these requests for information. On January 31, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that visually impaired patients are unable to use the Company’s touchscreen kiosks at Company patient service centers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar California statutes. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs. On March 20, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations. In August 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. On April 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs and the Company each filed Motions for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On May 23, 2022, the court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. On June 6, 2022, the Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal the Order Granting Class Certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the Company’s Petition for Permission to Appeal the Order Granting Class Certification. On February 8, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision to certify both a California damages class and a nationwide injunctive class. On March 25, 2024, the Company filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the Ninth Circuit. On April 18, 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied the Petition for Rehearing En Banc. On September 13, 2024, the Company filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On January 24, 2025, the United States Supreme Court granted the Company’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari limited to the following question: Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On October 16, 2020, Ravgen Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit, Ravgen Inc. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of two Ravgen-owned U.S. patents. The lawsuit sought monetary damages, enhancement of those damages for willfulness, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. On September 28, 2022, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on the sole asserted patent finding that the Company willfully infringed Ravgen’s patent, and awarded damages of $272.0. Plaintiff filed post-trial motions seeking enhanced damages of up to $817.0 based on the finding of willfulness, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. On May 12, 2023, the court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion in part and awarding enhanced damages of $100.0. On January 23, 2025, the court issued an order awarding Plaintiff post-verdict supplemental damages of $2.6, an ongoing royalty of one hundred dollars and 00/100 cents per test through the life of the patent at issue, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief. In January and February 2025, the trial court entered orders denying the Company’s post-trial motions. The Company strongly disagrees with the verdict, based on a number of legal factors, and will vigorously defend the lawsuit through the appeal process. On June 4, 2021, the Company also instituted proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the Ravgen patent at issue in the trial. In November 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision upholding the validity of the Ravgen patent, and that decision was upheld on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in January 2025. On May 14, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America (Bermejo I) filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central District, alleging that certain non-exempt California-based employees were not properly compensated for driving time or properly paid wages upon termination of employment. The Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California Labor Code provisions and Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. On June 15, 2020, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On June 16, 2020, the Company was served with a Private Attorney General Act lawsuit by the same plaintiff in Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America (Bermejo II), filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central District, alleging that certain Company practices violated California Labor Code penalty provisions related to unpaid and minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest break premiums, untimely payment of wages following separation of employment, failure to maintain accurate pay records, and non-reimbursement of business expenses. The second lawsuit seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. On October 28, 2020, the court issued an order staying proceedings in Bermejo II pending resolution of Bermejo I. The second lawsuit seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. On February 24, 2022, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding of the terms of a settlement of the Bermejo I and Bermejo II lawsuits. The court granted preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement agreement of the Bermejo I lawsuit on March 17, 2023, and of the Bermejo II lawsuit on November 29, 2023. The settlement funds for the Bermejo I and Bermejo II settlements have been transferred to a claims administrator for processing. Once the claims administration is completed, the parties will seek final settlement approval from the court. On November 23, 2021, the Company was served with a single plaintiff Private Attorney General Act lawsuit, Poole v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code, including that Plaintiff was not properly paid wages owed, not properly paid meal and rest break premiums, not reimbursed for certain business related expenses, and other allegations including the untimely payment of wages and receipt of inaccurate wage statements. The lawsuit sought monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in January 2025 and will seek dismissal of the action. On June 7, 2023, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Connie Howard, Yadira Yazmin Hernandez, and Deborah Reynolds, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, and Meta Platforms, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Company’s website includes a tracking code created by Meta, known as the Meta Pixel, that sent information related to Plaintiffs and their online activities to Meta. Plaintiffs assert claims against the Company under California and Pennsylvania law and seek to represent classes of all persons in California, or in Pennsylvania, who allegedly entered search terms into the Company’s website and who used Facebook during a time that Plaintiffs allege the Meta Pixel was active on the Company’s website. Plaintiffs seek an injunction, damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On August 23, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On September 5, 2023, the lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On September 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Among other things, the Amended Complaint contains allegations that in addition to the Meta Pixel, the Company’s website uses Google Analytics and other online tracking technologies. On October 11, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 27, 2024, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On August 14, 2020, the Company was served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the State of Colorado Office of the Attorney General requiring the production of documents related to urine drug testing in all states. The Company has responded to this request. On February 7, 2022, the Company was served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the DOJ in Camden, New Jersey requiring the production of documents related to non-invasive prenatal screening tests. The Company responded to the DOJ. On June 27, 2022, the Company was served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the DOJ in Boston, Massachusetts requiring the production of documents related to urine drug testing. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ. In April 2023, the Company received Civil Investigative Demands issued by the DOJ in Washington, D.C. requiring the production of information related to the Medicare billing rule regarding reimbursement for laboratory testing performed for hospital patients. The Company cooperated with the DOJ and entered into an agreement dated September 26, 2024, to resolve the matter. On February 13, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit, Michael Wiggins and Teri Stevens v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company’s website includes a computer code created by Google that sent information to Google related to Plaintiffs and their online activities. Plaintiffs assert statutory and common law claims against the Company and seek to represent a class of all persons whose protected health information was allegedly shared with Google from the Company’s website before March 8, 2023. Plaintiffs seek an injunction, damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On April 12, 2024, the Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. On October 11, 2024, the court granted the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. In December 2024, the claims were resolved pursuant to a settlement. There are various other pending legal proceedings involving the Company including, but not limited to, additional employment-related lawsuits, professional liability lawsuits, and commercial lawsuits. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, the likelihood of loss is remote and any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows, either individually or in the aggregate. 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.

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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: 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 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: 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/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: 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 6: 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