XML 140 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3.a.u2

Contingencies and Other Commitments | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Other Commitments | Contingencies and Other Commitments: We operate in a highly regulated industry in which healthcare providers are routinely subject to litigation. As a result, various lawsuits, claims, and legal and regulatory proceedings have been and can be expected to be instituted or asserted against us. The resolution of any such lawsuits, claims, or legal and regulatory proceedings could materially and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows in a given period. Nichols Litigation— We were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. In July 2019, we entered into settlement agreements with all but one plaintiff and paid those settling plaintiffs an aggregate amount of cash less than $0.1 million. The remaining plaintiff alleges that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005. However, the complaint has been amended from time to time, including to request certification as a class action. Additionally, one of the former officers named as a defendant has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the trial court granted our motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court’s dismissal on March 23, 2018. On April 6, 2018, we filed an application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court. On March 22, 2019, the Alabama Supreme Court denied our application for rehearing and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The court has scheduled the trial to begin August 10, 2020. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case against the sole remaining plaintiff. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case. Other Litigation— One of our hospital subsidiaries was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed August 12, 2013 by an individual in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama, captioned Honts v. HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Gadsden, LLC. The plaintiff alleged that her mother, who died more than three months after being discharged from our hospital, received an unprescribed opiate medication at the hospital. We deny the patient received any such medication, accounted for all the opiates at the hospital and argued the plaintiff established no causal liability between the actions of our staff and her mother’s death. The plaintiff sought recovery for punitive damages. On May 18, 2016, the jury in this case returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $20.0 million. On June 17, 2016, we filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial or, in the further alternative, a motion seeking reduction of the damages awarded (collectively, the “post-judgment motions”). The trial court denied the post-judgment motions. We appealed the verdict as well as the rulings on the post-judgment motions to the Supreme Court of Alabama on October 12, 2016. On September 28, 2018, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. As a result of the Alabama Supreme Court’s reversal, we reduced the associated liability below our insurance retention level of $6.0 million, and no longer maintained an insurance receivable in our consolidated balance sheet because we believed the liability did not exceed that retention level. As of December 31, 2018, we maintained a liability included in Other current liabilities in our consolidated balance sheet in connection with this matter. On February 27, 2019, we entered into a settlement with the plaintiff for an amount less than the remaining liability reserved and not material to us. Governmental Inquiries and Investigations— On March 4, 2013, we received document subpoenas from an office of the HHS-OIG addressed to four of our hospitals. On April 24, 2014, we received document subpoenas relating to an additional seven of our hospitals. The associated investigation led by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) was based on relator claims of alleged improper or fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and requested documents and materials relating to practices, procedures, protocols and policies, of certain pre- and post-admissions activities at these hospitals including, among other things, marketing functions, pre-admission screening, post-admission physician evaluations, patient assessment instruments, individualized patient plans of care, and compliance with the Medicare 60% rule. Under the Medicare rule commonly referred to as the “60% rule,” an inpatient rehabilitation hospital must treat 60% or more of its patients from at least one of a specified list of medical conditions in order to be reimbursed at the inpatient rehabilitation hospital payment rates, rather than at the lower acute care hospital payment rates. The investigation focused on a specific set diagnoses made by independent physicians at our hospitals. We relied on the medical judgment of these independent physicians to code the diagnoses. DOJ claimed, among other things, that under CMS regulations we improperly used the codes. However, CMS periodically reviewed industry usage of the codes and confirmed our reliance was appropriate. In addition, throughout the period of the investigation, CMS continued to pay our claims under those codes. The seven-year investigation produced no evidence of falsity or fraudulent conduct. Eventually, the court refused to give DOJ more time to decide whether to intervene and unsealed the related qui tam cases. DOJ chose not to intervene to prosecute the matter. Based on discussions with the government during the fourth quarter of 2018 as well as the burdens and distractions associated with continuing the investigation and the likely costs of future litigation, we estimated a settlement value of $48 million and accrued a loss contingency in that amount which was included in Other current liabilities in our consolidated balance sheet for the year ended December 31, 2018. Following further discussions, we settled the DOJ investigation, together with related qui tam or “whistleblower” lawsuits, in 2019 for a payment of $48 million, and we expressly denied any wrongdoing. In return for the settlement payment, the plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice their pending qui tam claims, and the DOJ provided Encompass Health and all its subsidiaries with a release from civil liability. Other Matters— The False Claims Act allows private citizens, called “relators,” to institute civil proceedings on behalf of the United States alleging violations of the False Claims Act. These lawsuits, also known as “whistleblower” or “qui tam” actions, can involve significant monetary damages, fines, attorneys’ fees and the award of bounties to the relators who successfully prosecute or bring these suits to the government. Qui tam cases are sealed at the time of filing, which means knowledge of the information contained in the complaint typically is limited to the relator, the federal government, and the presiding court. The defendant in a qui tam action may remain unaware of the existence of a sealed complaint for years. While the complaint is under seal, the government reviews the merits of the case and may conduct a broad investigation and seek discovery from the defendant and other parties before deciding whether to intervene in the case and take the lead on litigating the claims. The court lifts the seal when the government makes its decision on whether to intervene. If the government decides not to intervene, the relator may elect to continue to pursue the lawsuit individually on behalf of the government. It is possible that qui tam lawsuits have been filed against us, which suits remain under seal, or that we are unaware of such filings or precluded by existing law or court order from discussing or disclosing the filing of such suits. We may be subject to liability under one or more undisclosed qui tam cases brought pursuant to the False Claims Act. It is our obligation as a participant in Medicare and other federal healthcare programs to routinely conduct audits and reviews of the accuracy of our billing systems and other regulatory compliance matters. As a result of these reviews, we have made, and will continue to make, disclosures to the HHS-OIG and CMS relating to amounts we suspect represent over-payments from these programs, whether due to inaccurate billing or otherwise. Some of these disclosures have resulted in, or may result in, Encompass Health refunding amounts to Medicare or other federal healthcare programs. Other Commitments— We are a party to service and other contracts in connection with conducting our business. Minimum amounts due under these agreements are $61.4 million in 2020, $41.7 million in 2021, $15.1 million in 2022, $10.8 million in 2023, $6.9 million in 2024, and $7.1 million thereafter. These contracts primarily relate to software licensing and support.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration