9.	Contingencies

The majority of the Company’s revenues are from government programs and may be subject to adjustment as a result of: (i) examination by government agencies or contractors, for which the resolution of any matters raised may take extended periods of time to finalize; (ii) differing interpretations of government regulations by different Medicare contractors or regulatory authorities; (iii) differing opinions regarding a patient’s medical diagnosis or the medical necessity of services provided; and (iv) retroactive applications or interpretations of governmental requirements. In addition, the Company’s revenues from commercial payors may be subject to adjustment as a result of potential claims for refunds, as a result of government actions or as a result of other claims by commercial payors.

Inquiries by the Federal Government and Certain Related Civil Proceedings

Vainer Private Civil Suit: In December 2008, the Company received a subpoena for documents from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) relating to the pharmaceutical products Zemplar, Hectorol, Venofer, Ferrlecit and erythropoietin (EPO), as well as other related matters. The subpoena covered the period from January 2003 to December 2008. The Company was advised by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia and the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC that this was a civil inquiry. On June 17, 2009, the Company learned that the allegations underlying this inquiry were made as part of a civil complaint filed by individuals and brought pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act. On April 1, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ordered the case to be unsealed. At that time, the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a notice of declination stating that the federal government would not be intervening and not pursuing the relators’ allegation in litigation. On July 25, 2011, the relators, Daniel Barbir and Dr. Alon Vainer, filed their amended civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, purportedly on behalf of the federal government. The amended complaint alleges that the Company’s drug administration practices for the Company’s dialysis operations for Vitamin D and iron agents from 2003 through 2010 fraudulently created unnecessary waste, which was billed to and paid for by the government. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages and civil penalties as well as costs and expenses. The parties completed discovery in early 2014; however, in August 2014, the Court granted relators’ motion for sanctions and reopened discovery on a limited basis. The Company recently reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs pursuant to which the Court stayed the litigation and the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for further sanctions. While the specific terms of settlement have not yet been finalized, the Company has accrued an estimated loss contingency of $495,000 related to this matter, which consists of a settlement amount of $450,000 and attorney fees and other costs of $45,000. Negotiations are ongoing and until all parties have entered into a definitive final agreement, the Company can make no assurances about the specific settlement terms, including monetary and nonmonetary terms, or whether the Vainer suit ultimately will settle for an amount that is not greater than the amount of the estimated loss contingency.

2011 U.S. Attorney Medicaid Investigation: In October 2011, the Company announced that it would be receiving a request for documents, which could include an administrative subpoena from the OIG. Subsequent to the Company’s announcement of this 2011 U.S. Attorney Medicaid Investigation, the Company received a request for documents in connection with the inquiry by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. The request relates to payments for infusion drugs covered by Medicaid composite payments for dialysis. It is the Company’s understanding that this inquiry is civil in nature. The Company understands that certain other providers that operate dialysis clinics in New York may be receiving or have received a similar request for documents. The Company has cooperated with the government and produced the requested documents. In April 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, and is currently in the process of finalizing the specific terms of the settlement, and have accrued an amount that is immaterial.

Swoben Private Civil Suit: In April 2013, the Company’s HealthCare Partners (HCP) subsidiary was served with a civil complaint filed by a former employee of SCAN Health Plan (SCAN), a health maintenance organization (HMO). On July 13, 2009, pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act, James M. Swoben, as relator, filed a qui tam action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purportedly on behalf of the United States of America and the State of California against SCAN, and certain other defendants whose identities were under seal. The allegations in the complaint relate to alleged overpayments received from government healthcare programs. In or about August 2012, SCAN entered into a settlement agreement with the United States of America and the State of California. The United States and the State of California partially intervened in the action for the purpose of settlement with and dismissal of the action against SCAN. In or about November 2011, the relator filed his Third Amended Complaint under seal alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act, which named additional defendants, including HCP and certain health insurance companies (the defendant HMOs). The allegations in the complaint against HCP relate to patient diagnosis coding to determine reimbursement in the Medicare Advantage program, referred to as Hierarchical Condition Coding (HCC) and Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF) scores. The complaint sought monetary damages and civil penalties as well as costs and expenses. The United States Department of Justice reviewed these allegations and in January 2013 declined to intervene in the case. On June 26, 2013, HCP and the defendant HMOs filed their respective motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), challenging the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. On July 30, 2013, the court granted HCP’s motion and dismissed with prejudice all of the claims in the Third Amended Complaint and judgment was entered in September 2013. The court specifically determined that further amendments to the complaint would be futile because, in part, the allegations were publicly disclosed in reports and other sources relating to audits conducted by the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services. In October 2013, the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the court’s disposition of the appeal is pending.

2015 U.S. Attorney Transportation Investigation: In February 2015, the Company announced that it received six subpoenas from the OIG for medical records from six different dialysis centers in southern California operated by the Company. Specifically, each subpoena seeks the medical records of a single patient of the respective dialysis center. The Company has been advised by an attorney with the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California that the subpoenas relate to an investigation concerning the medical necessity of patient transportation. The Company does not provide transportation or bill for the transport of its dialysis patients. The Company does not know the scope of the investigation by the government, nor what conduct or activities might be the subject of the investigation.

2015 U.S. OIG Medicare Advantage Civil Investigation: On March 13, 2015, JSA HealthCare Corporation (JSA), a subsidiary of HCP, received a subpoena from the OIG. The Company has been advised by an attorney with the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., that the subpoena relates to an ongoing civil investigation concerning Medicare Advantage service providers’ risk adjustment practices and data, including identification and verification of patient diagnoses and factors used in making the diagnoses. The subpoena requests documents and information for the period from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2013, for certain Medicare Advantage plans for which JSA provided services. It also requests information regarding JSA’s communications about patient diagnoses as they relate to certain Medicare Advantage plans generally, and more specifically as related to two Florida physicians with whom JSA previously contracted. The Company intends to cooperate with the government’s investigation. In that regard, the Company intends to meet with representatives of the government to discuss the scope of the subpoena and the production of responsive documents.

Except for the private civil complaints filed by the relators as described above, to the Company’s knowledge, no proceedings have been initiated against the Company at this time in connection with any of the inquiries by the federal government. Although the Company cannot predict whether or when proceedings might be initiated or when these matters may be resolved, it is not unusual for inquiries such as these to continue for a considerable period of time through the various phases of document and witness requests and on-going discussions with regulators. Responding to the subpoenas or inquiries and defending the Company in the relator proceedings will continue to require management’s attention and significant legal expense. Any negative findings in the inquiries or relator proceedings could result in substantial financial penalties or awards against the Company, exclusion from future participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and, to the extent criminal proceedings may be initiated against the Company, possible criminal penalties. At this time, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these inquiries, or the potential outcome of the relators’ claims (except as described above), or the potential range of damages, if any.

Shareholder Derivative Claims

DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. Derivative Litigation: On January 7, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado consolidated the two previously disclosed shareholder derivative lawsuits: the Haverhill Retirement System action filed on May 17, 2013 and the Clark Shareholder action filed on August 7, 2012. The court appointed Haverhill lead plaintiff. The complaints filed against the directors of the Company and against the Company, as nominal defendant allege, among other things, that the Company’s directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company relating to the 2010 and 2011 U.S. Attorney Physician Relationship Investigations described above, the Vainer qui tam private civil suit described above and the Woodard qui tam private civil suit for which the Company previously announced a settlement in July 2012. The Company has entered into a settlement with the lead plaintiff, subject to court approval. The terms of the settlement, which were described in a court-ordered notice sent to shareholders in late January 2015, include enhancements to the Company’s corporate governance practices and provides that the Company will not oppose the derivative plaintiff’s application for an award of fees and expenses, the dollar amount of which is not material to the Company. On January 8, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, directing that the notice to shareholders be provided as described above and held a settlement fairness hearing on May 1, 2015.

Other

The Company has received several notices of claims from commercial payors and other third parties related to historical billing practices and claims against DVA Renal Healthcare (formerly known as Gambro Healthcare), a subsidiary of the Company, related to historical Gambro Healthcare billing practices and other matters covered by its 2004 settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and certain agencies of the U.S. government. The Company has received no further indication that any of these claims are active, and some of them may be barred by applicable statutes of limitations. To the extent any of these claims might proceed, the Company intends to defend against them vigorously; however, the Company may not be successful and these claims may lead to litigation and any such litigation may be resolved unfavorably. At this time, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters or the potential range of damages, if any.

A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California. The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April 2008, and it has been amended since that time. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain other California Labor Code requirements. In September 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs appealed that decision. In January 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on some claims, but remanded the case to the trial court for clarification of its decision on one of the claims. The Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the claim that was remanded to the trial court, and that settlement has been finalized. The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the remaining claims. Any potential settlement of the remaining claims is not anticipated to be material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to claims and suits, including from time to time, contractual disputes and professional and general liability claims, as well as audits and investigations by various government entities, in the ordinary course of business. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of any such pending proceedings, whether the underlying claims are covered by insurance or not, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.