Legal And Regulatory Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Legal And Regulatory Matters [Abstract]
Legal And Regulatory Matters	17. Legal and Regulatory Matters The VITAS segment of the Company’s business operates in a heavily-regulated industry. As a result, the Company is subjected to inquiries and investigations by various government agencies, which can result in penalties including repayment obligations, funding withholding, or debarment, as well as to lawsuits, including qui tam actions. The following sections describe the various ongoing material lawsuits and investigations of which the Company is currently aware. Other than as described below, it is not possible at this time for us to estimate either the timing or outcome of any of those matters, or whether any potential loss, or range of potential losses, is probable or reasonably estimable. Regulatory Matters and Litigation The Company and certain current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a case captioned In re Chemed Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 13 Civ. 1854 (LPS) (CJB) (D. Del.), which was consolidated on February 2, 2015. The complaint asserted a single claim for breach of the fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, due care and candor and sought, on behalf of the Company: (a) compensatory, restitutionary and exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest thereon; (b) attorneys’ fees and expenses; and (c) implementation of unspecified policies and procedures meant to prevent future instances of alleged wrongdoing. On February 26, 2019, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted with prejudice, and that the matter be dismissed as to all defendants. On March 14, 2019, the Court adopted the Report, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, and dismissed this matter as to all defendants. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a timely notice of appeal was April 15, 2019. No such notice was filed. Consequently, this matter is now concluded. On October 30, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to resolve civil litigation under the False Claims Act brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on behalf of the OIG and various relators concerning VITAS, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Missouri. The Company denied any violation of law and agreed to settlement without admission of wrongdoing. In connection with the settlement VITAS and certain of its subsidiaries entered into a corporate integrity agreement (“CIA”) on October 30, 2017. The CIA formalizes various aspects of VITAS’ already existing Compliance Program and contains requirements designed to document compliance with federal healthcare program requirements. It has a term of five years during which it imposes monitoring, reporting, certification, oversight, screening and training obligations, certain of which had previously been implemented by VITAS. It also requires VITAS to engage an Independent Review Organization to perform audit and review functions and to prepare reports regarding compliance with federal healthcare programs. In the event of breach of the CIA, VITAS could become liable for payment of stipulated penalties or could be excluded from participation in federal healthcare programs. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $75 million plus interest, plus certain attorney fees and expenses of qui tam relators. The Company made these payments during the fourth quarter 2017. The Company previously recorded a $90 million loss reserve ($55.8 million after-tax) related to the Settlement Agreement, and associated costs in the second quarter of 2017. During the fourth quarter of 2017, approximately $5.5 million ($3.4 million after-tax) recorded as part of the $90 million was reversed as relator attorney’ fees were less than originally estimated. The Company has also entered into a settlement agreement that, once approved by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, will resolve state-wide wage and hour class action claims raised in four separate cases: (1) Jordan A. Seper on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857 (“Seper”); (2) Jiwan Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc., a California corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL (“Chhina”) (which was subsequently merged with Seper); (3) Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2017-0021-2755; and (4) Williams v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 17853886. These actions were brought by both current and former employees including a registered nurse, a licensed vocational nurse (LVN), home health aides and a social worker. Each action stated multiple claims generally including (1) failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours at the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act. The cases generally asserted claims on behalf of classes defined to include all current and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of each lawsuit. For additional procedural history of these cases, please refer to our prior quarterly and annual filings. The Seper and Chhina cases were consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior Court; Chhina was dismissed as a separate action and joined with Seper in the filing of amended complaint on August 28, 2018, in which both Chhina and Seper were identified as named plaintiffs. Discovery in the remaining cases was stayed as to class claims and each court was advised of the pendency of the consolidated Seper/Chhina action. The parties engaged in a mediation process beginning in October 2018 and concluded with an agreement in March 2019. The settlement amount, subject to court approval, is $5.75 million plus employment taxes. As of December 31, 2019, $6.0 million was accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. The definition of the class to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, claims raised in Phillips and Moore, as well as any class claims in Williams. On January 28, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A notice of the proposed settlement will be sent to the members of the class by the class claims administrator. The court has set the date for the final approval of the settlement hearing for May 21, 2020. Alfred Lax (“Lax”), a current employee of Roto-Rooter Services Company (“RRSC”), was hired in RRSC’s Menlo Park branch in 2007. On November 30, 2018, Lax filed a class action lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging (1) failure to provide or compensate for required rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (4) failure to reimburse for work-related expenses; and (5) unfair business practices. Lax stated these claims as a representative of a class defined as all service technicians employed by RRSC in California during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. He seeks a determination that the action may proceed and be maintained as a class action and for compensatory and statutory damages (premium payments for missed rest periods, uncompensated rest periods, wages for time allegedly not paid such as travel time, repair time, and vehicle maintenance time, and unreimbursed expenses), penalties and restitutions, pre- and post-judgement interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. The lawsuit is, Alfred Lax on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 18CV338652. The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the probability of loss or range of loss for any of these lawsuits at this time, with the exception of Seper/Chhina, Phillips and Moore and the class claims in Williams. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the allegations in the above lawsuit. Regardless of the outcome of any of the preceding matters, dealing with the various regulatory agencies and opposing parties can adversely affect us through defense costs, potential payments, withholding of governmental funding, diversion of management time, and related publicity. Although the Company intends to defend them vigorously, there can be no assurance that those suits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Legal And Regulatory Matters

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Legal And Regulatory Matters [Abstract]

17. Legal and Regulatory Matters

The VITAS segment of the Company’s business operates in a heavily-regulated industry. As a result, the Company is subjected to inquiries and investigations by various government agencies, which can result in penalties including repayment obligations, funding withholding, or debarment, as well as to lawsuits, including qui tam actions. The following sections describe the various ongoing material lawsuits and investigations of which the Company is currently aware. Other than as described below, it is not possible at this time for us to estimate either the timing or outcome of any of those matters, or whether any potential loss, or range of potential losses, is probable or reasonably estimable.

Regulatory Matters and Litigation

The Company and certain current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a case captioned In re Chemed Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 13 Civ. 1854 (LPS) (CJB) (D. Del.), which was consolidated on February 2, 2015.

The complaint asserted a single claim for breach of the fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, due care and candor and sought, on behalf of the Company: (a) compensatory, restitutionary and exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest thereon; (b) attorneys’ fees and expenses; and (c) implementation of unspecified policies and procedures meant to prevent future instances of alleged wrongdoing. On February 26, 2019, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted with prejudice, and that the matter be dismissed as to all defendants. On March 14, 2019, the Court adopted the Report, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, and dismissed this matter as to all defendants. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a timely notice of appeal was April 15, 2019. No such notice was filed. Consequently, this matter is now concluded.

On October 30, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to resolve civil litigation under the False Claims Act brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on behalf of the OIG and various relators concerning VITAS, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Missouri. The Company denied any violation of law and agreed to settlement without admission of wrongdoing.

In connection with the settlement VITAS and certain of its subsidiaries entered into a corporate integrity agreement (“CIA”) on October 30, 2017. The CIA formalizes various aspects of VITAS’ already existing Compliance Program and contains requirements designed to document compliance with federal healthcare program requirements. It has a term of five years during which it imposes monitoring, reporting, certification, oversight, screening and training obligations, certain of which had previously been implemented by VITAS. It also requires VITAS to engage an Independent Review Organization to perform audit and review functions and to prepare reports regarding compliance with federal healthcare programs. In the event of breach of the CIA, VITAS could become liable for payment of stipulated penalties or could be excluded from participation in federal healthcare programs.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $75 million plus interest, plus certain attorney fees and expenses of qui tam relators. The Company made these payments during the fourth quarter 2017. The Company previously recorded a $90 million loss reserve ($55.8 million after-tax) related to the Settlement Agreement, and associated costs in the second quarter of 2017. During the fourth quarter of 2017, approximately $5.5 million ($3.4 million after-tax) recorded as part of the $90 million was reversed as relator attorney’ fees were less than originally estimated.

The Company has also entered into a settlement agreement that, once approved by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, will resolve state-wide wage and hour class action claims raised in four separate cases: (1) Jordan A. Seper on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857 (“Seper”); (2) Jiwan Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc., a California corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL (“Chhina”) (which was subsequently merged with Seper); (3) Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2017-0021-2755; and (4) Williams v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 17853886. These actions were brought by both current and former employees including a registered nurse, a licensed vocational

nurse (LVN), home health aides and a social worker. Each action stated multiple claims generally including (1) failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours at the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act. The cases generally asserted claims on behalf of classes defined to include all current and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of each lawsuit. For additional procedural history of these cases, please refer to our prior quarterly and annual filings.

The Seper and Chhina cases were consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior Court; Chhina was dismissed as a separate action and joined with Seper in the filing of amended complaint on August 28, 2018, in which both Chhina and Seper were identified as named plaintiffs. Discovery in the remaining cases was stayed as to class claims and each court was advised of the pendency of the consolidated Seper/Chhina action. The parties engaged in a mediation process beginning in October 2018 and concluded with an agreement in March 2019. The settlement amount, subject to court approval, is $5.75 million plus employment taxes. As of December 31, 2019, $6.0 million was accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. The definition of the class to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, claims raised in Phillips and Moore, as well as any class claims in Williams. On January 28, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A notice of the proposed settlement will be sent to the members of the class by the class claims administrator. The court has set the date for the final approval of the settlement hearing for May 21, 2020.

Alfred Lax (“Lax”), a current employee of Roto-Rooter Services Company (“RRSC”), was hired in RRSC’s Menlo Park branch in 2007. On November 30, 2018, Lax filed a class action lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging (1) failure to provide or compensate for required rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (4) failure to reimburse for work-related expenses; and (5) unfair business practices. Lax stated these claims as a representative of a class defined as all service technicians employed by RRSC in California during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. He seeks a determination that the action may proceed and be maintained as a class action and for compensatory and statutory damages (premium payments for missed rest periods, uncompensated rest periods, wages for time allegedly not paid such as travel time, repair time, and vehicle maintenance time, and unreimbursed expenses), penalties and restitutions, pre- and post-judgement interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. The lawsuit is, Alfred Lax on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 18CV338652.

The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the probability of loss or range of loss for any of these lawsuits at this time, with the exception of Seper/Chhina, Phillips and Moore and the class claims in Williams.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the allegations in the above lawsuit. Regardless of the outcome of any of the preceding matters, dealing with the various regulatory agencies and opposing parties can adversely affect us through defense costs, potential payments, withholding of governmental funding, diversion of management time, and related publicity. Although the Company intends to defend them vigorously, there can be no assurance that those suits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.