2.2.0.25falsefalse0214 - Disclosure - Commitments and Contingenciestruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse10/1/2010 - 3/31/2011 USD ($) USD ($) / shares $Oct-01-2010_Mar-31-2011http://www.sec.gov/CIK0000047518duration2010-10-01T00:00:002011-03-31T00:00:00USDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170SharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDEPSDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0hrc_CommitmentsAndContingenciesAbstracthrcfalsenadurationCommitments and Contingencies.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringCommitments and Contingencies.falsefalseCommitments and Contingencies [Abstract]3false0us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseverboselabel1falsefalsefalse00  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt"><b>14. Commitments and Contingencies</b> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt"><u>Batesville Casket Antitrust Litigation</u> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">In 2005 the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. and a number of individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers of Batesville<sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-top">®</sup> caskets against us and our former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary (now wholly-owned by Hillenbrand, Inc.), and three national funeral home businesses. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">The district court has dismissed the claims and denied class certification, but in October 2010, the plaintiffs appealed these decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. If the plaintiffs were to succeed in reversing the district court’s dismissal of the claims, but not the denial of class certification, then the plaintiffs would be able to pursue individual damages claims: the alleged overcharges on the plaintiffs’ individual casket purchases, which would be trebled as a matter of law, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">If the plaintiffs were to (1) succeed in reversing the district court’s dismissal of the claims, (2) succeed in reversing the district court order denying class certification and certify a class, and (3) prevail at trial, then the damages awarded to the plaintiffs, which would be trebled as a matter of law, could have a significant material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. The plaintiffs filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages ranging from approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion before trebling on behalf of the purported class of consumers they seek to represent, based on claims of approximately one million casket purchases by the purported class members. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">We and Hillenbrand, Inc. have entered into a judgment sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any potential liabilities associated with this litigation between us and Hillenbrand, Inc. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">We believe that we have committed no wrongdoing as alleged by the plaintiffs and that we have meritorious defenses to class certification and to plaintiffs’ underlying allegations and damage theories. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt"><u>Office of Inspector General Investigation</u> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">On February 8, 2008, we were served with an Administrative Investigative Demand subpoena by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee pursuant to a Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General investigation. On September 18, 2008, we were informed that the investigation was precipitated by the filing in 2005 of a <i>qui tam </i>(whistleblower) complaint under the False Claims Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Once the complaint is filed with the court under seal, the Department of Justice investigates the allegations and has the right to intervene and in effect take over the prosecution of the lawsuit if it believes the allegations warrant. At this point, the government has not yet reached a final intervention decision and is continuing its investigation. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">Although the complaint has been only partially unsealed at this point and we have not been formally served, we know that the plaintiffs seek recovery of significant damages and civil penalties relating to the alleged submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare and/or Medicaid for the provision of durable medical equipment. In the event that this matter were to proceed to litigation, if it were found that we had failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we could be subject to substantial fines or penalties and possible exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. At this time, we are continuing to cooperate with the government’s investigation. We cannot provide any assurances as to when the government will finish its investigation, or when, if ever, it will determine to formally intervene. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt"><u>Freedom Medical Antitrust Litigation</u> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">On October 19, 2009, Freedom Medical, Inc. filed a complaint against us, another manufacturer and two group purchasing organizations in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff alleges that we and the other defendants conspired to exclude it from the biomedical equipment rental market and to maintain our market share by engaging in a variety of conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff also has asserted claims for business disparagement, common law conspiracy and tortuous interference with business relationships. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages in an unspecified amount. We intend to defend this matter vigorously. Because the litigation is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assess the likelihood of an adverse outcome or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential damages, nor can we give any assurances that this matter will not have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt"><u>General</u> </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">We are subject to various other claims and contingencies arising out of the normal course of business, including those relating to governmental investigations and proceedings, commercial transactions, product liability, employee related matters, antitrust, safety, health, taxes, environmental, product guarantees and warranties as well as other matters. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of individual litigated matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that some litigation matters for which reserves have not been established could be decided unfavorably to us, and that any such unfavorable decisions could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. </div> <div align="justify" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt">We are involved in possible claims and are generally self-insured up to certain limits for product/general liability, workers’ compensation, auto liability and professional liability insurance programs. These policies have deductibles and self-insured retentions ranging from $150 thousand to $1.5 million per occurrence, depending upon the type of coverage and policy period. We are also generally self-insured up to certain stop-loss limits for certain employee health benefits, including medical, drug and dental. Our policy is to estimate reserves based upon a number of factors including known claims, estimated incurred but not reported claims and outside actuarial analysis, which are based on historical information along with certain assumptions about future events. </div> </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged NotefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 falsefalseCommitments and Contingencies12Commitments and ContingenciesUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue