Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	(14) Commitments and Contingencies In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to loss contingencies, such as legal proceedings and claims arising out of its business that cover a wide range of matters. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Accounting for Contingencies, the Company records accruals for such loss contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. The Company reviews its accruals at least quarterly and adjusts accordingly to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and updated information. At this time, the Company has no material accruals related to lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings. While there can be no assurance, based on the Company’s evaluation of information currently available, the Company’s management believes any liability that may ultimately result from resolution of such loss contingencies will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial conditions or results of operations. However, the Company’s assessment may be affected by limited information. Accordingly, the Company’s assessment may change in the future based upon availability of new information and further developments in the proceedings of such matters. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible. In connection with the Company’s acquisition of PPS HME Holdings LLC (PPS), in May 2018, the Company assumed a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) at one of PPS’ subsidiaries, Braden Partners L.P. d/b/a Pacific Pulmonary Services (BP). The CIA was entered into with the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OIG). The CIA has a five-year term which expires as of April 2022. In connection with the acquisition and integration of PPS by AdaptHealth, the OIG confirmed that the requirements of the CIA imposed upon BP would only apply to the operations of BP and therefore no operations of any other AdaptHealth affiliate are subject to the requirements of the CIA following the acquisition. On December 16, 2021, the OIG-HHS notified PPS that its report for the period ended March 31, 2021 had been accepted and PPS had satisfied its obligations under the CIA as of such date. On May 24, 2022, the Company submitted its report for the period ended March 31, 2022. On July 25, 2017, the Company was served with a subpoena by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3486 to produce certain audit records and internal communications regarding ventilator billing. The investigation focused on billing practices regarding one payor that contracted for bundled payments for certain ventilators. The Company has cooperated with investigators and, through agreement with the EDPA, has submitted all information requested in the Company’s possession. An independent third party was retained by the Company that identified overpayments and underpayments for ventilator billings related to the payor, and a remittance was sent to reconcile that account. On October 3, 2019, the Company received a follow-up civil investigative demand from the EDPA regarding a document previously produced to the EDPA and patients included in the review by the independent third party. The Company has responded to the EDPA and supplemented its production as requested with any relevant documents in the Company’s possession. During subsequent communications, the EDPA indicated to the Company that the investigation remained ongoing. The EDPA also requested additional information regarding certain patient services and claims refunds processed by the Company in 2017. The Company produced this information in coordination with the EDPA. The EDPA has also raised questions regarding other aspects of ventilator billing. While the Company cannot provide any assurance as to whether the EDPA will seek additional information or pursue this matter further, it does not believe that the investigation will have a material adverse effect on the Company. In March 2019, prior to its acquisition by the Company, AeroCare was served with a civil investigative demand (CID) issued by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky (WDKY). The CID seeks to investigate allegations that AeroCare improperly billed, or caused others to improperly bill, for oxygen tank contents that were not delivered to beneficiaries. The WDKY has requested documents related to such oxygen tank content billing as well as other categories of information. AeroCare has cooperated with the WDKY and has produced documents and provided explanations of its billing practices. In September 2020, the WDKY indicated the investigation includes alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act and as well as alleged violations of state Medicaid false claims acts in ten states. AeroCare has cooperated fully with the investigation and has indicated to the WDKY that concerns raised do not accurately identify Medicare coverage criteria and that state Medicaid coverage requirements generally do not provide for separate reimbursement for portable gaseous oxygen contents in the circumstances at issue. While the Company cannot provide any assurance as to whether the WDKY will seek additional information or pursue this matter further, it does not believe that the investigation will have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in a lawsuit, as described below. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this legal proceeding, nor can it estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if any, that may result. An adverse outcome in this proceeding could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible. On July 29, 2021, Robert Charles Faille Jr., a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Complaint). The Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s stock between November 11, 2019 and July 16, 2021. The Complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material information regarding the Company’s organic growth trajectory. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On October 14, 2021, the Delaware County Employees Retirement System and the Bucks County Employees Retirement System were named Lead Plaintiffs. Pursuant to the scheduling order, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on November 22, 2021 (the Consolidated Complaint), which asserts substantially the same claim, but adds a number of current and former directors of the Company as additional defendants and a new theory of recovery based on the Company’s alleged failure to disclose information concerning the Company’s former Co-CEO’s alleged tax fraud arising from certain past private activity (the “Consolidated Class Action”). On January 20, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Lead Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion was filed on March 21, 2022, and defendants’ reply was filed on April 15, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the court issued an opinion and order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On July 15, 2022, the court entered a scheduling order providing for, inter alia, a schedule for completing class certification discovery, as well as setting a briefing schedule for motions for class certification. Pursuant to the scheduling order, Lead Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 28, 2022. The defendants’ opposition to Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is due to be filed on January 20, 2023; and Lead Plaintiffs’ reply is due to be filed on March 10, 2023.The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Consolidated Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. On December 6, 2021, a putative shareholder of the Company, Carol Hessler, filed a shareholder derivative complaint against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Derivative Complaint”). The Derivative Complaint generally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the company by allegedly causing or allowing misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the Company’s organic growth and Luke McGee’s alleged criminal activity, failing to maintain an adequate system of oversight, disclosure controls and procedures, and internal controls over financial reporting and due diligence into the Company’s management team, and engaging in insider trading. The Derivative Complaint also alleges claims for waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Finally, the Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of the individual defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly negligently issuing, causing to be issued, and participating in the issuance of materially misleading statements to stockholders in the Company’s Proxy Statements on Schedule DEF 14A in connection with a Special Meeting of Stockholders, held on March 3, 2021, and the 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, held on July 27, 2021. The Derivative Complaint seeks, among other things, an award of money damages. On March 4, 2022, the parties stipulated to stay the Hessler action pending final resolution of the Consolidated Class Action. On March 7, 2022, the court so-ordered the parties’ stipulation. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Derivative Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. On May 2, 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York issued a civil investigative demand to Community Surgical Supply Inc. (CSS), a subsidiary of the Company, pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3733 (FCA) surrounding whether CSS submitted false claims in violation of the FCA related to CSS’s billing of, and reimbursements from, federal health care programs for ventilators provided to patients from January 1, 2015 to the present. The Company is fully cooperating with the investigation. Given the investigation is in the early stages, it is not possible to determine whether it will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

(14) Commitments and Contingencies

In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to loss contingencies, such as legal proceedings and claims arising out of its business that cover a wide range of matters. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Accounting for Contingencies, the Company records accruals for such loss contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. The Company reviews its accruals at least quarterly and adjusts accordingly to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and updated information. At this time, the Company has no material accruals related to lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings. While there can be no assurance, based on the Company’s evaluation of information currently available, the Company’s management believes any liability that may ultimately result from resolution of such loss contingencies will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial conditions or results of operations. However, the Company’s assessment may be affected by limited information. Accordingly, the Company’s assessment may change in the future based upon availability of new information and further developments in the proceedings of such matters. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible.

In connection with the Company’s acquisition of PPS HME Holdings LLC (PPS), in May 2018, the Company assumed a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) at one of PPS’ subsidiaries, Braden Partners L.P. d/b/a Pacific Pulmonary Services (BP). The CIA was entered into with the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OIG). The CIA has a five-year term which expires as of April 2022. In connection with the acquisition and integration of PPS by AdaptHealth, the OIG confirmed that the requirements of the CIA imposed upon BP would only apply to the operations of BP and therefore no operations of any other AdaptHealth affiliate are subject to the requirements of the CIA following the acquisition. On December 16, 2021, the OIG-HHS notified PPS that its report for the period ended March 31, 2021 had been accepted and PPS had satisfied its obligations under the CIA as of such date. On May 24, 2022, the Company submitted its report for the period ended March 31, 2022.

On July 25, 2017, the Company was served with a subpoena by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3486 to produce certain audit records and internal communications regarding ventilator billing. The investigation focused on billing practices regarding one payor that contracted for bundled payments for certain ventilators. The Company has cooperated with investigators and, through agreement with the EDPA, has submitted all information requested in the Company’s possession. An independent third party was retained by the Company that identified overpayments and underpayments for ventilator billings related to the payor, and a remittance was sent to reconcile that account. On October 3, 2019, the Company received a follow-up civil investigative demand from the EDPA regarding a document previously produced to the EDPA and patients included in the review by the independent third party. The Company has responded to the EDPA and supplemented its production as requested with any relevant documents in the Company’s possession. During subsequent communications, the EDPA indicated to the Company that the investigation remained ongoing. The EDPA also requested additional information regarding certain patient services and claims refunds processed by the Company in 2017. The Company produced this information in coordination with the EDPA. The EDPA has also raised questions regarding other aspects of ventilator billing. While the Company cannot provide any assurance as to whether the EDPA will seek additional information or pursue this matter further, it does not believe that the investigation will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

In March 2019, prior to its acquisition by the Company, AeroCare was served with a civil investigative demand (CID) issued by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky (WDKY). The CID seeks to investigate allegations that AeroCare improperly billed, or caused others to improperly bill, for oxygen tank contents that were not delivered to beneficiaries. The WDKY has requested documents related to such oxygen tank content billing as well as other categories of information. AeroCare has cooperated with the WDKY and has produced documents and provided explanations of its billing practices. In September 2020, the WDKY indicated the investigation includes alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act and as well as alleged violations of state Medicaid false claims acts in ten states. AeroCare has cooperated fully with the investigation and has indicated to the WDKY that concerns raised do not accurately identify Medicare coverage criteria and that state Medicaid coverage requirements generally do not provide for separate reimbursement for portable gaseous oxygen contents in the circumstances at issue. While the Company cannot provide any assurance as to whether the WDKY will seek additional information or pursue this matter further, it does not believe that the investigation will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in a lawsuit, as described below. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this legal proceeding, nor can it estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if any, that may result. An adverse outcome in this proceeding could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible.

On July 29, 2021, Robert Charles Faille Jr., a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Complaint). The Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s stock between November 11, 2019 and July 16, 2021. The Complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material information regarding the Company’s organic growth trajectory. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On October 14, 2021, the Delaware County Employees Retirement System and the Bucks County Employees Retirement System were named Lead Plaintiffs. Pursuant to the scheduling order, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on November 22, 2021 (the Consolidated Complaint), which asserts substantially the same claim, but adds a number of current and former directors of the Company as additional defendants and a new theory of recovery based on the Company’s alleged failure to disclose information concerning the Company’s former Co-CEO’s alleged tax fraud arising from certain past private activity (the “Consolidated Class Action”). On January 20, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Lead Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion was filed on March 21, 2022, and defendants’ reply was

filed on April 15, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the court issued an opinion and order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On July 15, 2022, the court entered a scheduling order providing for, inter alia, a schedule for completing class certification discovery, as well as setting a briefing schedule for motions for class certification. Pursuant to the scheduling order, Lead Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 28, 2022. The defendants’ opposition to Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is due to be filed on January 20, 2023; and Lead Plaintiffs’ reply is due to be filed on March 10, 2023.The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Consolidated Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful.

On December 6, 2021, a putative shareholder of the Company, Carol Hessler, filed a shareholder derivative complaint against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Derivative Complaint”). The Derivative Complaint generally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the company by allegedly causing or allowing misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the Company’s organic growth and Luke McGee’s alleged criminal activity, failing to maintain an adequate system of oversight, disclosure controls and procedures, and internal controls over financial reporting and due diligence into the Company’s management team, and engaging in insider trading. The Derivative Complaint also alleges claims for waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Finally, the Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of the individual defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly negligently issuing, causing to be issued, and participating in the issuance of materially misleading statements to stockholders in the Company’s Proxy Statements on Schedule DEF 14A in connection with a Special Meeting of Stockholders, held on March 3, 2021, and the 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, held on July 27, 2021. The Derivative Complaint seeks, among other things, an award of money damages.

On March 4, 2022, the parties stipulated to stay the Hessler action pending final resolution of the Consolidated Class Action. On March 7, 2022, the court so-ordered the parties’ stipulation.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Derivative Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful.

On May 2, 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York issued a civil investigative demand to Community Surgical Supply Inc. (CSS), a subsidiary of the Company, pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3733 (FCA) surrounding whether CSS submitted false claims in violation of the FCA related to CSS’s billing of, and reimbursements from, federal health care programs for ventilators provided to patients from January 1, 2015 to the present. The Company is fully cooperating with the investigation. Given the investigation is in the early stages, it is not possible to determine whether it will have a material adverse effect on the Company.