Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Item 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Indemnities — From time to time, we enter into contracts that contingently require us to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily include (i) certain real estate leases, under which we may be required to indemnify property owners or prior facility operators for post-transfer environmental or other liabilities and other claims arising from our use of the applicable premises, (ii) operations transfer agreements, in which we agree to indemnify past operators of facilities we acquire against certain liabilities arising from the transfer of the operation and/or the operation thereof after the transfer to our independent subsidiary, (iii) certain lending agreements, under which we may be required to indemnify the lender against various claims and liabilities, and (iv) certain agreements with our officers, directors and others, under which we may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities based on the nature of their relationship to us. The terms of such obligations vary by contract and, in most instances, do not expressly state or include a specific or maximum dollar amount. Generally, amounts under these contracts cannot be reasonably estimated until a specific claim is asserted. Consequently, because no claims have been asserted, no liabilities have been recorded for any such potential obligation on our balance sheets for any of the periods presented.
Litigation and Regulatory Matters — Laws and regulations governing Medicare and Medicaid programs are complex and subject to review and interpretation. Compliance with such laws and regulations is evaluated regularly, the results of which can be subject to future governmental review and interpretation and can include significant regulatory action with the possibility of fines, penalties, and exclusion from certain governmental programs. Included in these laws and regulations is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (monitored and enforced by the Office of Civil Rights), the terms of which require healthcare providers (among other things) to safeguard the privacy and security of certain patient protected health information.
We and our independent subsidiaries are party to various legal actions and administrative proceedings and are subject to various claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including claims that services provided to patients by our independent subsidiaries have resulted in injury or death, and claims related to employment and commercial matters. For example, in a four-week medical negligence trial in the State of Arizona, the jury returned a verdict against one of our independent subsidiaries in late November 2023. We are in the process of appealing the jury verdict. We have in the past appealed similar decisions and have, in some circumstances, received decisions in our favor. Although we intend to vigorously defend against these claims and in general these types of claims and cases, there can be no assurance that the outcomes of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on operational results and financial condition. Additionally, in certain states in which we have or have had independent subsidiaries, insurance coverage for the risk of punitive damages arising from general and professional liability litigation may not be available due to state law and/or public policy prohibitions. There can be no assurance that we and or our independent subsidiaries will not be liable for punitive damages awarded in litigation arising in states for which punitive damage insurance coverage is not available.
The skilled nursing and post-acute care industry is heavily regulated. As such, we and our independent subsidiaries are continuously subject to state and federal regulatory scrutiny, supervision and intervention in the ordinary course of business. Such regulatory scrutiny often includes inquiries, investigations, examinations, audits, site visits and surveys, some of which are non-routine. In addition to being subject to regulatory oversight from state and federal agencies, the skilled nursing and post-acute care industry is also subject to regulatory requirements which, if noncompliance is identified, could result in civil, administrative or criminal fines, penalties or restitutionary relief, and/or reimbursement; authorities could also seek the suspension or exclusion of a provider or individual from participation in State and Federal healthcare programs. We believe that there has been, and will continue to be, an increase in governmental investigations of post-acute providers, particularly in alleged Medicare/Medicaid false claims, as well as an increase in enforcement actions resulting from these investigations. Adverse determinations in civil legal proceedings or governmental investigations, whether currently asserted or arising in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Additionally, such proceedings and/or investigations can be a distraction to the business of our independent subsidiaries.
62
Table of C o ntents
We, on behalf of our independent subsidiaries, received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in January of 2024 indicating that the DOJ is investigating the Company to determine whether claims have been submitted to Medicare and Texas Medicaid for services which were unnecessary or otherwise not consistent with existing reimbursement requirements. The CID covers the period from January 1, 2016 to the present. As a general matter, our independent subsidiaries maintain policies and procedures to promote compliance with all applicable Medicare and Medicaid requirements, including but not limited to those relating to the presentation of claims for reimbursement for services provided. We are fully cooperating with the DOJ in response to the CID. However, we cannot predict the outcome of the investigation or its potential impact on the consolidated financial statements.
In addition to the potential lawsuits and claims described above, we and our independent subsidiaries are also subject to potential lawsuits under the FCA and comparable state laws alleging the submission of fraudulent claims for services to any Federal and State healthcare program (such as Medicare or Medicaid). A violation may provide the basis for exclusion from federally funded healthcare programs. Such exclusions could also have a correlative negative impact on our financial performance. In addition, and pursuant to the qui tam or "whistleblower" provisions of the FCA, a private individual with knowledge of fraud or potential fraud may bring a claim on behalf of the Federal government, and receive a percentage of any recovery obtained. Due to these whistleblower incentives, qui tam lawsuits have become more frequent.
For example, on May 31, 2018, we, on behalf of our independent subsidiaries, received a CID from the DOJ stating that it was investigating to determine whether there had been a violation of the FCA and/or the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) with respect to the relationships between certain of our independent subsidiaries and persons who serve or have served as medical directors. We fully cooperated with the DOJ and promptly responded to its requests for information. In April 2020, we were advised that the DOJ declined to intervene in any subsequent action filed in connection with the subject matter of this investigation. Despite the decision of the DOJ to decline to participate in litigation based on the subject matter of its previously issued CID, the involved qui tam relator moved forward with the complaint in December 2020. From that time until December 2023, and notwithstanding our success in early pre-trial motions, we continued to incur legal defense costs and fees. In 2024, we entered into mediation with the involved parties and agreed to settle the civil case for $48.0 million. Following the finalization of the settlement documents and payment of the settlement funds, the qui tam complaint was dismissed and the matter was fully resolved. The settlement does not include admissions on the part of the Company or our independent subsidiaries, and we maintain that we have consistently complied with and continue to comply with all applicable State and Federal statutes (including but not limited to the FCA and the AKS).
In addition to the FCA, some states, including California, Arizona and Texas, have enacted similar whistleblower and false claims laws and regulations. Further, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 created incentives for states to enact anti-fraud legislation modeled on the FCA. As such, we and our independent subsidiaries could face increased scrutiny, potential liability and legal expenses and costs based on claims under state false claims acts in markets where our independent subsidiaries do business.
Under the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA), health care providers face significant penalties for the knowing retention of government overpayments, even if no false claim was involved. Health care providers can now be liable for knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay money or property to the government. This includes the retention of any government overpayment. The government can argue, therefore, that an FCA violation can occur without any affirmative fraudulent action or statement, if the action or statement is knowingly improper. In addition, FERA extended protections against retaliation for whistleblowers, including protections not only for employees, but also contractors and agents. Thus, an employment relationship is generally not required in order to qualify for protection against retaliation for whistleblowing.
Healthcare litigation (including class action litigation) is common and is filed based upon a wide variety of claims and theories. We and our independent subsidiaries have been subjected to, and/or are currently involved in, class action litigation alleging violations (alone or in combination) of state and federal wage and hour law related to the alleged failure to pay wages, to timely provide and compensate meal and rest breaks, and other such similar causes of action. For example, in 2025, we agreed to settle substantially all alleged wage, hour or labor code-related violations asserted on a class or representative basis against our independent subsidiaries in California for purported violations occurring during the six year period ending December 2025, for $12.0 million, pending court approval. While we have been able to settle or otherwise resolve many of these types of claims without an ongoing material adverse effect on our business, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or an increase in the amounts owed should plaintiffs be successful in their prosecution of remaining or future claims, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
63
Table of C o ntents
We and our independent subsidiaries have been, and continue to be, subject to claims, findings and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of the various businesses, including in connection with the delivery of healthcare and non-healthcare services. These claims include but are not limited to potential claims related to patient care and treatment (professional negligence claims). These claims could impact our ability to procure insurance to cover our exposure related to the various services provided by our independent subsidiaries to their residents, customers and patients.
From time to time, various state or Federal agencies may issue requests for information, including but not limited to a subpoena. As an example, OHCA is currently conducting a CMIR with respect to specific components of a proposed transaction involving three of our independent subsidiaries in California. We provided OHCA with requested information regarding specific components of the proposed transaction as part of the CMIR. We have been unable to effect resolution including attempts to narrow the scope, and limit the requests to our independent subsidiaries operating in California. We have filed a Petition in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, seeking a declaration that the CMIR regulations violate the United States Constitution and/or the California Constitution, and is void and unenforceable as applied to us. We also have requested that OHCA be ordered to withdraw the subpoena and close the inquiry, so the underlying transaction can be completed.
Both government and private pay sources have instituted cost-containment measures designed to limit payments made to providers of healthcare services, and there can be no assurance that future measures designed to limit payments made to providers will not adversely affect us.
Medicare Revenue Recoupments — We and our independent subsidiaries are subject to regulatory reviews relating to the provision of Medicare services, billings and potential overpayments resulting from reviews conducted via RAC, and various Program Safeguard Contractors and Medicaid Integrity Contractors (collectively referred to as Reviews). Reviews vary in claim selection size and processes, ranging from a single episode/claim to larger, multi-claim batches; and from single rounds of review to reviews of multiple rounds with pass/fail criteria. If an operation has a significant error or fails a Review and/or subsequent Reviews, the operation could then be subject to extended review or an extrapolation of the identified error rate to billings in the same time period. We anticipate that these Reviews could increase in frequency in the future. As of March 31, 2026, and through the filing date of this report, 22 of our independent subsidiaries had multi-claim Reviews scheduled or in process.
64
Table of C o ntents
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.