Contingencies and Other Commitments	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Other Commitments	Contingencies and Other Commitments We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry. As a result, various lawsuits, claims, and legal and regulatory proceedings have been and can be expected to be instituted or asserted against us. The resolution of any such lawsuits, claims, or legal and regulatory proceedings could materially and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows in a given period. Litigation By and Against Former Independent Auditor— In March 2003, claims on behalf of HealthSouth were brought against Ernst & Young, LLP in a stockholder derivative lawsuit initially filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama on August 28, 2002 and captioned Tucker v. Scrushy. The Tucker derivative litigation, including the claims against various other defendants and the $2.9 billion judgment against Mr. Scrushy, our former chairman and chief executive officer, is more fully described in “Derivative Litigation” and “Litigation Against Richard M. Scrushy” in Note 19, Contingencies and Other Commitments, to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2012 Form 10-K. The Tucker complaint alleges that from 1996 through 2002, when Ernst & Young served as our independent auditor, Ernst & Young acted recklessly and with gross negligence in performing its duties, and specifically that Ernst & Young failed to perform reviews and audits of our financial statements with due professional care as required by law and by its contractual agreements with us. The claims further allege Ernst & Young either knew of or, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered and investigated the fraudulent and improper accounting practices being directed by certain officers and employees, and should have reported them to our board of directors and the audit committee. The claims seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of fees received from us by Ernst & Young, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 18, 2005, Ernst & Young filed a lawsuit captioned Ernst & Young LLP v. HealthSouth Corp. in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. The complaint alleges we provided Ernst & Young with fraudulent management representation letters, financial statements, invoices, bank reconciliations, and journal entries in an effort to conceal accounting fraud. Ernst & Young claims that as a result of our actions, Ernst & Young’s reputation has been injured and it has and will incur damages, expenses, and legal fees. On April 1, 2005, we answered Ernst & Young’s claims and asserted counterclaims related or identical to those asserted in the Tucker action. Upon Ernst & Young’s motion, the Alabama state court referred Ernst & Young’s claims and our counterclaims to arbitration pursuant to a clause in the engagement agreements between HealthSouth and Ernst & Young. In August 2006, we and the derivative plaintiffs agreed to jointly prosecute the claims against Ernst & Young in arbitration. The trial phase of the arbitration process began on July 12, 2010 before a three-person arbitration panel selected under rules of the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”). On December 18, 2012, the AAA panel granted Ernst & Young’s motion to dismiss our claims on the grounds that HealthSouth is not permitted to pursue its claims since certain of its former officers and employees committed fraudulent acts. The panel also denied and dismissed Ernst & Young’s claims against us. On December 18, 2012, we, together with the stockholder derivative plaintiffs, filed a notice of appeal of the panel’s decision in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On December 28, 2012, we filed a motion to vacate the decision. We assert that the panel’s decision is contrary to the Federal Arbitration Act and the duties of a public accounting firm to its corporate clients, and that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by entering an award contrary to Alabama law. On April 25, 2013, the court denied our motion to vacate. On June 4, 2013, we filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama seeking review of the Circuit Court's denial of our motion to vacate the arbitration panel's decision, and the briefing schedule has begun. At this time, we do not know how long the appellate process will take. Based on the ruling of the arbitration panel, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility of a loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this case. General Medicine Action— On August 16, 2004, General Medicine, P.C. filed a lawsuit against us captioned General Medicine, P.C. v. HealthSouth Corp. seeking the recovery of allegedly fraudulent transfers involving assets of Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation, a former subsidiary of HealthSouth. The lawsuit is pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama (the “Alabama Action”). General Medicine’s underlying claim against Horizon/CMS originates from a services contract entered into in 1995 between General Medicine and Horizon/CMS whereby General Medicine agreed to provide medical director services to skilled nursing facilities owned by Horizon/CMS for a term of three years. Horizon/CMS terminated the agreement for cause six months after it was executed, and General Medicine then initiated a lawsuit against Horizon/CMS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1996 (the “Michigan Action”). General Medicine’s complaint in the Michigan Action alleged that Horizon/CMS breached the services contract by wrongfully terminating General Medicine. We acquired Horizon/CMS in 1997 and sold it to Meadowbrook Healthcare, Inc. in 2001 pursuant to a stock purchase agreement. In 2004, Meadowbrook, without the knowledge of HealthSouth, consented to the entry of a final judgment in the Michigan Action in favor of General Medicine against Horizon/CMS for the alleged wrongful termination of the contract with General Medicine in the amount of $376 million, plus interest from the date of the judgment until paid at the rate of 10% per annum (the “Consent Judgment”). The $376 million damages figure was unilaterally selected by General Medicine and was not tested or opposed by Meadowbrook. Additionally, the settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) used as the basis for the Consent Judgment provided that Meadowbrook would pay only $300,000 to General Medicine to settle the Michigan Action and that General Medicine would seek to recover the remaining balance of the Consent Judgment solely from us. We were not a party to the Michigan Action, the Settlement negotiated by Meadowbrook, or the Consent Judgment. The complaint filed by General Medicine against us in the Alabama Action alleges that while Horizon/CMS was our wholly owned subsidiary, General Medicine was an existing creditor of Horizon/CMS by virtue of the breach of contract claim underlying the Settlement. The complaint also alleges we caused Horizon/CMS to transfer its assets to us for less than a reasonably equivalent value or, in the alternative, with the actual intent to defraud creditors of Horizon/CMS, including General Medicine, in violation of the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. General Medicine further alleges in its amended complaint that we are liable for the Consent Judgment despite not being a party to it because as Horizon/CMS’s parent we failed to observe corporate formalities in our operation and ownership of Horizon/CMS, misused our control of Horizon/CMS, stripped assets from Horizon/CMS, and engaged in other conduct which amounted to a fraud on Horizon/CMS’s creditors. General Medicine has requested relief including recovery of the unpaid amount of the Consent Judgment, the avoidance of the subject transfers of assets, attachment of the assets transferred to us, appointment of a receiver over the transferred properties, and a monetary judgment for the value of properties transferred. We have denied liability to General Medicine and asserted counterclaims against General Medicine for fraud, injurious falsehood, tortious interference with business relations, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, abuse of process, and other causes of action. In our counterclaims, we alleged the Consent Judgment is the product of fraud, collusion and bad faith by General Medicine and Meadowbrook and, further, that these parties were guilty of a conspiracy to manufacture a lawsuit against HealthSouth in favor of General Medicine. Consequently, we assert that the Consent Judgment is not evidence of a legitimate debt owed by Horizon/CMS to General Medicine that is collectible from HealthSouth under any theory of liability. In 2008, after we obtained discovery concerning the circumstances that led to the entry of the Consent Judgment, we filed a motion in the Michigan Action asking the court to set aside the Consent Judgment on grounds that it was the product of fraud on the court and collusion by the parties. On May 21, 2009, the court granted our motion to set aside the Consent Judgment on grounds that it was the product of fraud on the court. On March 9, 2010, General Medicine filed an appeal of the court's decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties agreed to a voluntary stay of the Alabama Action pending the outcome of General Medicine's appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling and reinstated the Consent Judgment. Due to the conclusion of the appeal in the Michigan Action, General Medicine requested reactivation of the Alabama Action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On January 10, 2013, we filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the Alabama Action seeking a declaration that the Consent Judgment obtained by General Medicine is not enforceable against us because, among other reasons, it was the result of collusion. On February 27, 2013, the court denied our motion and reserved the issue of collusion for a later time. The court issued a supplemental order on April 11, 2013, clarifying its February 27, 2013 ruling. The court's rulings provide that the Consent Judgment is admissible as evidence of General Medicine's claim in the Alabama Action but the amount of the Consent Judgment is not binding on us. Therefore, we remain free to present evidence challenging the amount of the damages figure contained in the Consent Judgment, including the value of the underlying contract-related claim that is the basis for the Consent Judgment. The court further ruled that we may develop and present evidence that the Consent Judgment is void in its entirety as the product of collusion by General Medicine and Horizon/CMS. The court also indicated it concurred with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Consent Judgment did nothing more than establish Horizon/CMS's liability to General Medicine and did not establish the merits of General Medicine's separate fraudulent conveyance claims against HealthSouth. The Alabama Action is still in the discovery phase and has been set for trial beginning in June 2014. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against General Medicine’s claims and to vigorously prosecute our counterclaims against General Medicine. Other Litigation— We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case. We were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 3, 2009 by an individual in the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, South Carolina, captioned Sulton v. HealthSouth Corp, et al. The plaintiff alleged that certain treatment he received at a HealthSouth facility complicated a pre-existing infectious injury. The plaintiff sought recovery for pain and suffering, medical expenses, punitive damages, and other damages. On July 30, 2010, the jury in this case returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $12.3 million in damages. We appealed that verdict, and on November 21, 2012, the Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the jury verdict in its entirety and remanded the case to the court of common pleas for retrial. On March 8, 2013, the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, South Carolina approved our comprehensive settlement agreement with the plaintiff in the Sulton case. While the terms of the settlement are confidential, the amount paid to the plaintiff to settle all claims was not material to us and was less than amounts previously accrued. See Note 10, Self-Insured Risks, to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2012 Form 10-K. HHS-OIG Investigations— On June 24, 2011, we received a document subpoena addressed to HealthSouth Hospital of Houston, a long-term acute care hospital (“LTCH”) we closed in August 2011, and issued from the Dallas, Texas office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (the “HHS-OIG”). The subpoena is in connection with an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and requests documents and materials relating to this closed LTCH’s patient admissions, length of stay, and discharge matters. On March 4, 2013, we received document subpoenas addressed to four of our wholly owned hospitals and issued from the Miami Lakes, Florida office of the HHS-OIG. These hospitals process all of their Medicare claims through the same Medicare administrative contractor, Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators, LLC. Each subpoena is in connection with an investigation of alleged improper or fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and requests documents and materials relating to practices, procedures, protocols and policies, of certain pre- and post-admissions activities at these hospitals including, among other things, marketing functions, pre-admission screening, post-admission physician evaluations, patient assessment instruments, individualized patient plans of care, and compliance with the Medicare 60% rule. Under the Medicare rule commonly referred to as the “60% rule,” an inpatient rehabilitation hospital must treat 60% or more of its patients from at least one of a specified list of medical conditions in order to be reimbursed at the inpatient rehabilitation hospital payment rates, rather than at the lower acute care hospital payment rates. The subpoenas also request complete copies of medical records for 100 patients treated at each of these hospitals between September 2008 and June 2012. We are cooperating fully with the HHS-OIG in connection with these subpoenas and are currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of the related investigations. Other Matters— The False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. § 287, allows private citizens, called “relators,” to institute civil proceedings alleging violations of the False Claims Act. These qui tam cases are generally sealed by the court at the time of filing. The only parties privy to the information contained in the complaint are the relator, the federal government, and the presiding court. It is possible that qui tam lawsuits have been filed against us and that we are unaware of such filings or have been ordered by the presiding court not to discuss or disclose the filing of such lawsuits. We may be subject to liability under one or more undisclosed qui tam cases brought pursuant to the False Claims Act. It is our obligation as a participant in Medicare and other federal healthcare programs to routinely conduct audits and reviews of the accuracy of our billing systems and other regulatory compliance matters. As a result of these reviews, we have made, and will continue to make, disclosures to the HHS-OIG and the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) relating to amounts we suspect represent over-payments from these programs, whether due to inaccurate billing or otherwise. Some of these disclosures have resulted in, or may result in, HealthSouth refunding amounts to Medicare or other federal healthcare programs. In March 2008, we sold our corporate campus to Daniel Corporation (“Daniel”), a Birmingham, Alabama-based real estate company. The sale included a deferred purchase price component related to an incomplete 13-story building located on the property, often referred to as the Digital Hospital. Under the agreement, Daniel was obligated upon sale of its interest in the building to pay to us 40% of the net profit realized from the sale. In June 2013, Daniel sold the building to Trinity Medical Center. In the third quarter of 2013, we received $10.8 million in cash from Daniel in connection with the sale of the building. The gain associated with this transaction is being deferred and amortized over five years, which is the remaining life of our lease agreement with Daniel for the portion of the property we continue to occupy with our corporate office, as a component of General and administrative expenses. Pursuant to legislative directives and authorizations from Congress, CMS has developed and instituted various Medicare audit programs under which CMS contracts with private companies to conduct claims and medical record audits. One type of audit contractor, the Recovery Audit Contractors, began post-payment audit processes in late 2009 for providers in general. In connection with CMS approved and announced audits related to inpatient rehabilitation facilities, we have recently received requests to review certain patient files for discharges occurring from 2010 to 2013. To date, the Medicare payments that are subject to these audit requests represent less than 1% of our average annual patient discharges over the past three years. However, it is too early for us to assess the ultimate scope of the review, the number of claims that might subsequently be denied, and the ultimate result of any appeal or adjudication process. As discussed in Note 19, Contingencies and Other Commitments, “Litigation Against Richard M. Scrushy,” to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2012 Form 10-K, we previously recorded an estimated liability for the plaintiffs in the 2004 consolidated securities action for amounts claimed by them under the 2007 comprehensive settlement of that action brought against us by our stockholders and bondholders. Specifically, this estimate related to the plaintiffs’ claim for 25% apportionment of any net recovery from Richard Scrushy, Ernst & Young LLP, and UBS. In September 2013, these plaintiffs filed a request with the federal court overseeing the settlement to approve an agreement reached on how to calculate this apportionment obligation. As a result of this filing with the court, we recorded a noncash reduction to the liability originally recorded in 2006 for this obligation during the third quarter of 2013 through the line item Government, class action, and related settlements in our condensed consolidated statements of operations. In addition, we have resolved all claims against former officers other than Richard Scrushy who were remaining as defendants in the derivative lawsuit discussed in Note 19, Contingencies and Other Commitments, “Derivative Litigation,” to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2012 Form 10-K. These resolutions included the entry of final judgments against five former officers and resulted in the collection of approximately $5 million during the third quarter of 2013. These collections were included in the line item Government, class action, and related settlements in our condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013.

Contingencies and Other Commitments

We operate in a highly regulated and litigious industry. As a result, various lawsuits, claims, and legal and regulatory proceedings have been and can be expected to be instituted or asserted against us. The resolution of any such lawsuits, claims, or legal and regulatory proceedings could materially and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows in a given period.

Litigation By and Against Former Independent Auditor—

In March 2003, claims on behalf of HealthSouth were brought against Ernst & Young, LLP in a stockholder derivative lawsuit initially filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama on August 28, 2002 and captioned Tucker v. Scrushy. The Tucker derivative litigation, including the claims against various other defendants and the $2.9 billion judgment against Mr. Scrushy, our former chairman and chief executive officer, is more fully described in “Derivative Litigation” and “Litigation Against Richard M. Scrushy” in Note 19, Contingencies and Other Commitments, to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2012 Form 10-K. The Tucker complaint alleges that from 1996 through 2002, when Ernst & Young served as our independent auditor, Ernst & Young acted recklessly and with gross negligence in performing its duties, and specifically that Ernst & Young failed to perform reviews and audits of our financial statements with due professional care as required by law and by its contractual agreements with us. The claims further allege Ernst & Young either knew of or, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered and investigated the fraudulent and improper accounting practices being directed by certain officers and employees, and should have reported them to our board of directors and the audit committee. The claims seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of fees received from us by Ernst & Young, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On March 18, 2005, Ernst & Young filed a lawsuit captioned Ernst & Young LLP v. HealthSouth Corp. in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. The complaint alleges we provided Ernst & Young with fraudulent management representation letters, financial statements, invoices, bank reconciliations, and journal entries in an effort to conceal accounting fraud. Ernst & Young claims that as a result of our actions, Ernst & Young’s reputation has been injured and it has and will incur damages, expenses, and legal fees. On April 1, 2005, we answered Ernst & Young’s claims and asserted counterclaims related or identical to those asserted in the Tucker action. Upon Ernst & Young’s motion, the Alabama state court referred Ernst & Young’s claims and our counterclaims to arbitration pursuant to a clause in the engagement agreements between HealthSouth and Ernst & Young. In August 2006, we and the derivative plaintiffs agreed to jointly prosecute the claims against Ernst & Young in arbitration.

The trial phase of the arbitration process began on July 12, 2010 before a three-person arbitration panel selected under rules of the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”). On December 18, 2012, the AAA panel granted Ernst & Young’s motion to dismiss our claims on the grounds that HealthSouth is not permitted to pursue its claims since certain of its former officers and employees committed fraudulent acts. The panel also denied and dismissed Ernst & Young’s claims against us. On December 18, 2012, we, together with the stockholder derivative plaintiffs, filed a notice of appeal of the panel’s decision in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On December 28, 2012, we filed a motion to vacate the decision. We assert that the panel’s decision is contrary to the Federal Arbitration Act and the duties of a public accounting firm to its corporate clients, and that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by entering an award contrary to Alabama law. On April 25, 2013, the court denied our motion to vacate. On June 4, 2013, we filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama seeking review of the Circuit Court's denial of our motion to vacate the arbitration panel's decision, and the briefing schedule has begun. At this time, we do not know how long the appellate process will take.

Based on the ruling of the arbitration panel, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility of a loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this case.

General Medicine Action—

On August 16, 2004, General Medicine, P.C. filed a lawsuit against us captioned General Medicine, P.C. v. HealthSouth Corp. seeking the recovery of allegedly fraudulent transfers involving assets of Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation, a former subsidiary of HealthSouth. The lawsuit is pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama (the “Alabama Action”).

General Medicine’s underlying claim against Horizon/CMS originates from a services contract entered into in 1995 between General Medicine and Horizon/CMS whereby General Medicine agreed to provide medical director services to skilled nursing facilities owned by Horizon/CMS for a term of three years. Horizon/CMS terminated the agreement for cause six months after it was executed, and General Medicine then initiated a lawsuit against Horizon/CMS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1996 (the “Michigan Action”). General Medicine’s complaint in the Michigan Action alleged that Horizon/CMS breached the services contract by wrongfully terminating General Medicine. We acquired Horizon/CMS in 1997 and sold it to Meadowbrook Healthcare, Inc. in 2001 pursuant to a stock purchase agreement. In 2004, Meadowbrook, without the knowledge of HealthSouth, consented to the entry of a final judgment in the Michigan Action in favor of General Medicine against Horizon/CMS for the alleged wrongful termination of the contract with General Medicine in the amount of $376 million, plus interest from the date of the judgment until paid at the rate of 10% per annum (the “Consent Judgment”). The $376 million damages figure was unilaterally selected by General Medicine and was not tested or opposed by Meadowbrook. Additionally, the settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) used as the basis for the Consent Judgment provided that Meadowbrook would pay only $300,000 to General Medicine to settle the Michigan Action and that General Medicine would seek to recover the remaining balance of the Consent Judgment solely from us. We were not a party to the Michigan Action, the Settlement negotiated by Meadowbrook, or the Consent Judgment.

The complaint filed by General Medicine against us in the Alabama Action alleges that while Horizon/CMS was our wholly owned subsidiary, General Medicine was an existing creditor of Horizon/CMS by virtue of the breach of contract claim underlying the Settlement. The complaint also alleges we caused Horizon/CMS to transfer its assets to us for less than a reasonably equivalent value or, in the alternative, with the actual intent to defraud creditors of Horizon/CMS, including General Medicine, in violation of the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. General Medicine further alleges in its amended complaint that we are liable for the Consent Judgment despite not being a party to it because as Horizon/CMS’s parent we failed to observe corporate formalities in our operation and ownership of Horizon/CMS, misused our control of Horizon/CMS, stripped assets from Horizon/CMS, and engaged in other conduct which amounted to a fraud on Horizon/CMS’s creditors. General Medicine has requested relief including recovery of the unpaid amount of the Consent Judgment, the avoidance of the subject transfers of assets, attachment of the assets transferred to us, appointment of a receiver over the transferred properties, and a monetary judgment for the value of properties transferred.

We have denied liability to General Medicine and asserted counterclaims against General Medicine for fraud, injurious falsehood, tortious interference with business relations, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, abuse of process, and other causes of action. In our counterclaims, we alleged the Consent Judgment is the product of fraud, collusion and bad faith by General Medicine and Meadowbrook and, further, that these parties were guilty of a conspiracy to manufacture a lawsuit against HealthSouth in favor of General Medicine. Consequently, we assert that the Consent Judgment is not evidence of a legitimate debt owed by Horizon/CMS to General Medicine that is collectible from HealthSouth under any theory of liability.

In 2008, after we obtained discovery concerning the circumstances that led to the entry of the Consent Judgment, we filed a motion in the Michigan Action asking the court to set aside the Consent Judgment on grounds that it was the product of fraud on the court and collusion by the parties. On May 21, 2009, the court granted our motion to set aside the Consent Judgment on grounds that it was the product of fraud on the court. On March 9, 2010, General Medicine filed an appeal of the court's decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties agreed to a voluntary stay of the Alabama Action pending the outcome of General Medicine's appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling and reinstated the Consent Judgment. Due to the conclusion of the appeal in the Michigan Action, General Medicine requested reactivation of the Alabama Action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On January 10, 2013, we filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the Alabama Action seeking a declaration that the Consent Judgment obtained by General Medicine is not enforceable against us because, among other reasons, it was the result of collusion. On February 27, 2013, the court denied our motion and reserved the issue of collusion for a later time. The court issued a supplemental order on April 11, 2013, clarifying its February 27, 2013 ruling. The court's rulings provide that the Consent Judgment is admissible as evidence of General Medicine's claim in the Alabama Action but the amount of the Consent Judgment is not binding on us. Therefore, we remain free to present evidence challenging the amount of the damages figure contained in the Consent Judgment, including the value of the underlying contract-related claim that is the basis for the Consent Judgment. The court further ruled that we may develop and present evidence that the Consent Judgment is void in its entirety as the product of collusion by General Medicine and Horizon/CMS. The court also indicated it concurred with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Consent Judgment did nothing more than establish Horizon/CMS's liability to General Medicine and did not establish the merits of General Medicine's separate fraudulent conveyance claims against HealthSouth. The Alabama Action is still in the discovery phase and has been set for trial beginning in June 2014.

Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against General Medicine’s claims and to vigorously prosecute our counterclaims against General Medicine.

Other Litigation—

We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case.

We were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 3, 2009 by an individual in the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, South Carolina, captioned Sulton v. HealthSouth Corp, et al. The plaintiff alleged that certain treatment he received at a HealthSouth facility complicated a pre-existing infectious injury. The plaintiff sought recovery for pain and suffering, medical expenses, punitive damages, and other damages. On July 30, 2010, the jury in this case returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $12.3 million in damages. We appealed that verdict, and on November 21, 2012, the Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the jury verdict in its entirety and remanded the case to the court of common pleas for retrial. On March 8, 2013, the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, South Carolina approved our comprehensive settlement agreement with the plaintiff in the Sulton case. While the terms of the settlement are confidential, the amount paid to the plaintiff to settle all claims was not material to us and was less than amounts previously accrued. See Note 10, Self-Insured Risks, to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2012 Form 10-K.

HHS-OIG Investigations—

On June 24, 2011, we received a document subpoena addressed to HealthSouth Hospital of Houston, a long-term acute care hospital (“LTCH”) we closed in August 2011, and issued from the Dallas, Texas office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (the “HHS-OIG”). The subpoena is in connection with an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and requests documents and materials relating to this closed LTCH’s patient admissions, length of stay, and discharge matters.

On March 4, 2013, we received document subpoenas addressed to four of our wholly owned hospitals and issued from the Miami Lakes, Florida office of the HHS-OIG. These hospitals process all of their Medicare claims through the same Medicare administrative contractor, Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators, LLC. Each subpoena is in connection with an investigation of alleged improper or fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid and requests documents and materials relating to practices, procedures, protocols and policies, of certain pre- and post-admissions activities at these hospitals including, among other things, marketing functions, pre-admission screening, post-admission physician evaluations, patient assessment instruments, individualized patient plans of care, and compliance with the Medicare 60% rule. Under the Medicare rule commonly referred to as the “60% rule,” an inpatient rehabilitation hospital must treat 60% or more of its patients from at least one of a specified list of medical conditions in order to be reimbursed at the inpatient rehabilitation hospital payment rates, rather than at the lower acute care hospital payment rates. The subpoenas also request complete copies of medical records for 100 patients treated at each of these hospitals between September 2008 and June 2012.

We are cooperating fully with the HHS-OIG in connection with these subpoenas and are currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of the related investigations.

Other Matters—

The False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. § 287, allows private citizens, called “relators,” to institute civil proceedings alleging violations of the False Claims Act. These qui tam cases are generally sealed by the court at the time of filing. The only parties privy to the information contained in the complaint are the relator, the federal government, and the presiding court. It is possible that qui tam lawsuits have been filed against us and that we are unaware of such filings or have been ordered by the presiding court not to discuss or disclose the filing of such lawsuits. We may be subject to liability under one or more undisclosed qui tam cases brought pursuant to the False Claims Act.

It is our obligation as a participant in Medicare and other federal healthcare programs to routinely conduct audits and reviews of the accuracy of our billing systems and other regulatory compliance matters. As a result of these reviews, we have made, and will continue to make, disclosures to the HHS-OIG and the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) relating to amounts we suspect represent over-payments from these programs, whether due to inaccurate billing or otherwise. Some of these disclosures have resulted in, or may result in, HealthSouth refunding amounts to Medicare or other federal healthcare programs.

In March 2008, we sold our corporate campus to Daniel Corporation (“Daniel”), a Birmingham, Alabama-based real estate company. The sale included a deferred purchase price component related to an incomplete 13-story building located on the property, often referred to as the Digital Hospital. Under the agreement, Daniel was obligated upon sale of its interest in the building to pay to us 40% of the net profit realized from the sale. In June 2013, Daniel sold the building to Trinity Medical Center. In the third quarter of 2013, we received $10.8 million in cash from Daniel in connection with the sale of the building. The gain associated with this transaction is being deferred and amortized over five years, which is the remaining life of our lease agreement with Daniel for the portion of the property we continue to occupy with our corporate office, as a component of General and administrative expenses.

Pursuant to legislative directives and authorizations from Congress, CMS has developed and instituted various Medicare audit programs under which CMS contracts with private companies to conduct claims and medical record audits. One type of audit contractor, the Recovery Audit Contractors, began post-payment audit processes in late 2009 for providers in general. In connection with CMS approved and announced audits related to inpatient rehabilitation facilities, we have recently received requests to review certain patient files for discharges occurring from 2010 to 2013. To date, the Medicare payments that are subject to these audit requests represent less than 1% of our average annual patient discharges over the past three years. However, it is too early for us to assess the ultimate scope of the review, the number of claims that might subsequently be denied, and the ultimate result of any appeal or adjudication process.

As discussed in Note 19, Contingencies and Other Commitments, “Litigation Against Richard M. Scrushy,” to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2012 Form 10-K, we previously recorded an estimated liability for the plaintiffs in the 2004 consolidated securities action for amounts claimed by them under the 2007 comprehensive settlement of that action brought against us by our stockholders and bondholders. Specifically, this estimate related to the plaintiffs’ claim for 25% apportionment of any net recovery from Richard Scrushy, Ernst & Young LLP, and UBS. In September 2013, these plaintiffs filed a request with the federal court overseeing the settlement to approve an agreement reached on how to calculate this apportionment obligation. As a result of this filing with the court, we recorded a noncash reduction to the liability originally recorded in 2006 for this obligation during the third quarter of 2013 through the line item Government, class action, and related settlements in our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

In addition, we have resolved all claims against former officers other than Richard Scrushy who were remaining as defendants in the derivative lawsuit discussed in Note 19, Contingencies and Other Commitments, “Derivative Litigation,” to the consolidated financial statements accompanying the 2012 Form 10-K. These resolutions included the entry of final judgments against five former officers and resulted in the collection of approximately $5 million during the third quarter of 2013. These collections were included in the line item Government, class action, and related settlements in our condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013.