17.	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: As previously disclosed, 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, covering the period from January 2003 to December 2008. The Company subsequently learned that the allegations underlying this inquiry were made as part of a civil complaint filed by relators, Daniel Barbir and Dr. Alon Vainer, pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act. The relators also alleged 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. In June 2015, the Company finalized the terms of the settlement with plaintiffs, including a settlement amount of $450,000 and attorney fees and other costs of $45,000 which was paid in 2015.

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 related 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 further that certain other providers that operate dialysis clinics in New York may 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 with the government and expects to execute in the first quarter of 2016 the settlement agreements with the government and the state of New York to finalize the terms of the settlement and to resolve this matter, and has accrued an amount that is immaterial.

Swoben Private Civil Suit: In April 2013, the Company’s 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 (FCA) 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 FCA 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 (CMS). 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 administrative 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 each respective dialysis center. In February 2016, the Company received four additional subpoenas for four additional dialysis centers in southern California. The subpoenas were similarly limited in scope to the subpoenas received in 2015. The Company has been advised by an attorney with 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 nor does it 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: In March 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 is producing the requested information and is cooperating with the government’s investigation.

In addition to the subpoena described above, in June 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG. This civil subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2008 through the present and seeks production of a wide range of documents relating to the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ (including HealthCare Partners and its subsidiary JSA HealthCare Corporation) provision of services to Medicare Advantage plans and related patient diagnosis coding and risk adjustment submissions and payments. The Company believes that the request is part of a broader industry investigation into Medicare Advantage patient diagnosis coding and risk adjustment practices and potential overpayments by the government. Some of the information requested relates to what the Company first disclosed in the risk factors of the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2015 as a potentially improper historical HCP coding practice related to a particular condition. The practice in question was discontinued following the Company’s November 1, 2012 acquisition of HCP and, as the Company previously disclosed, the Company notified CMS of the coding practice and potential overpayments. In connection with the HCP merger, the Company has certain indemnification rights against the sellers and an escrow was established as security for the indemnification. The Company would pursue an indemnification claim against the sellers secured by the escrow for any and all liabilities incurred. The Company can make no assurances that the indemnification and escrow would cover the full amount of the Company’s potential losses related to this matter. The Company is cooperating with the government and is producing the requested information.

2015 U.S. Department of Justice Vascular Access Investigation: In November 2015, the Company announced that RMS Lifeline, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company that operates under the name Lifeline Vascular Access (Lifeline), received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The CID relates to two vascular access centers in Florida that are part of Lifeline’s vascular access business. The CID covers the period from January 1, 2008 through the present. The Company acquired these two centers in December 2012. Based on the language of the CID, the DOJ appears to be looking at whether the angiograms of 10 patients performed at the two centers were medically unnecessary and therefore whether related claims filed with federal healthcare programs possibly violated the FCA. Lifeline does not perform dialysis services but instead provides vascular access management services for dialysis patients. The Company is in the process of producing the requested documents to the DOJ.

2016 U.S. Attorney Prescription Drug Investigation: In early February 2016, the Company announced that its pharmacy services wholly owned subsidiary, DaVita Rx, received a CID from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas. Based on the language of the CID, it appears the government is conducting an FCA investigation concerning allegations that DaVita Rx presented or caused to be presented false claims for payment to the government for prescription medications. The CID covers the period from January 1, 2006 through the present. In the spring of 2015, the Company initiated an internal compliance review of DaVita Rx during which it identified potential billing and operational issues. The Company notified the government in September of 2015 that it was conducting this review of DaVita Rx and began providing regular updates of its review. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recorded an estimated accrual of $22 million for potential damages and liabilities associated with write-offs and discounts of patient co-payment obligations, and credits to payors for returns of prescriptions drugs, related to DaVita Rx that were identified during the course of this internal compliance review. The Company may accrue additional reserves for refunds and related damages and potential liabilities arising out of this review. Upon completion of its review, the Company filed a self-disclosure with the OIG in early February 2016 and has been working to address and update the practices it identified in the self-disclosure, some of which overlaps with information requested by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The Company does not know if the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which is part of the DOJ, knew when it served the CID on the Company that it was already in the process of developing a self-disclosure to the OIG. The OIG informed the Company in late February that its submission was not accepted. They indicated that the OIG is not expressing an opinion regarding the conduct disclosed or the Company’s legal positions. The Company intends to cooperate with the government in this matter.

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 if criminal proceedings were 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 entered into a settlement with the lead plaintiff, which as previously disclosed, were described in a court-ordered notice sent to shareholders in late January 2015, and included 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. The Court approved the settlement and entered an order granting final approval of the settlement on June 5, 2015 and final judgment in the case was entered on June 9, 2015.

Other

The Company 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 DOJ and certain agencies of the U.S. government. The Company has not received any further indication that any of these claims are active except for one payor claim relating to a special needs plan, and some of the other claims may be barred by applicable statutes of limitations. The Company is working to resolve the one active claim of which it is aware and, based on the dollar amount of the claim, expects that its eventual resolution will involve an amount that is immaterial.

In April 2008, a wage and hour lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California which was styled as a class action and was subsequently amended. The complaint, as amended, alleged 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. After the Company prevailed on certain trial court rulings, the plaintiffs later appealed to the California Court of Appeals, and some of the issues on appeal were remanded to the trial court. The Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the case in June 2015. The settlement has now been approved by the court. The amount of the settlement is not 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.