Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In the normal course of business, the Company has made certain guarantees and indemnities, under which it may be required to make payments to a guaranteed or indemnified party, in relation to certain transactions. The Company indemnifies other parties, including customers, lessors, and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters. The Company has agreed to hold the other party harmless against losses arising from certain events as defined within the particular contract, which may include, for example, litigation or claims arising from a breach of representations or covenants. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its executive officers and directors and the Company's bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations. Under these arrangements, the Company is obligated to indemnify, to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, its current or former officers and directors for various amounts incurred with respect to actions, suits or proceedings in which they were made, or threatened to be made, a party as a result of acting as an officer or director. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made related to these indemnifications have been immaterial. At September 30, 2014, the Company has determined that no liability is necessary related to these guarantees and indemnities. In June 2012, Pacific Coast Cardiology (“PCC”) d/b/a Pacific Coast Imaging, Emanuel Shaoulian, MD, Inc., and Michael M. Radin, MD, Inc. filed a lawsuit in California state court against the Company and other defendants. The complaint asserted a number of claims related to the Company’s decision not to purchase PCC in 2010, and also separately sought a determination regarding an amount the Company contended was owed to it by PCC pursuant to a previous contractual arrangement. In July 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement for an amount that is not material to the Company's financial position, results or operations or cash flows, for which the Company previously recorded an accrual. The court approved the settlement on August 11, 2014. On November 9, 2012, USR, a subsidiary of the Company, received a grand jury subpoena issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee seeking documents related to USR and its financial relationships with physicians and other healthcare providers. The Company and USR are cooperating fully with the inquiry. The Company is currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of this matter, however, it is not unusual for such matters to continue for a considerable period of time. Responding to this matter will require management's attention and likely result in significant legal expense. To management's knowledge, the federal government has not initiated any proceedings against the Company at this time. On March 27, 2013, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi by Superior MRI Services, Inc. The plaintiff is an alleged successor in interest to a former local competitor, P&L Contracting, Inc. Plaintiff alleges the Company disregarded Mississippi Certificate of Need ("CON") rules and regulations by operating without obtaining the appropriate authority, and is seeking in excess of $1,000 in damages as well as requesting injunctive relief. In January of 2014, the District Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on a number of procedural and substantive grounds. The plaintiff has appealed the District Court’s ruling and the Company has responded accordingly. At this time, the parties are awaiting a ruling from the appellate court. The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. On June 14, 2013, Alliance Oncology, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, filed a complaint against Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Inc. (“HVMA”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, including several claims seeking damages resulting from HVMA’s early termination of a long-term services agreement between the two companies. HVMA filed an answer to Alliance Oncology’s complaint on August 27, 2013. Without specifying its alleged damages, HVMA also asserted several counterclaims in its answer. The Company filed its answer to HVMA’s counterclaims on October 4, 2013, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted. Litigation is currently ongoing through the discovery process. The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. The Company from time to time is involved in routine litigation and regulatory matters incidental to the conduct of its business. The Company believes that resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

In the normal course of business, the Company has made certain guarantees and indemnities, under which it may be required to make payments to a guaranteed or indemnified party, in relation to certain transactions. The Company indemnifies other parties, including customers, lessors, and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters. The Company has agreed to hold the other party harmless against losses arising from certain events as defined within the particular contract, which may include, for example, litigation or claims arising from a breach of representations or covenants. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its executive officers and directors and the Company's bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations. Under these arrangements, the Company is obligated to indemnify, to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, its current or former officers and directors for various amounts incurred with respect to actions, suits or proceedings in which they were made, or threatened to be made, a party as a result of acting as an officer or director.

It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement.

Historically, payments made related to these indemnifications have been immaterial. At September 30, 2014, the Company has determined that no liability is necessary related to these guarantees and indemnities.

In June 2012, Pacific Coast Cardiology (“PCC”) d/b/a Pacific Coast Imaging, Emanuel Shaoulian, MD, Inc., and Michael M. Radin, MD, Inc. filed a lawsuit in California state court against the Company and other defendants. The complaint asserted a number of claims related to the Company’s decision not to purchase PCC in 2010, and also separately sought a determination regarding an amount the Company contended was owed to it by PCC pursuant to a previous contractual arrangement. In July 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement for an amount that is not material to the Company's financial position, results or operations or cash flows, for which the Company previously recorded an accrual. The court approved the settlement on August 11, 2014.

On November 9, 2012, USR, a subsidiary of the Company, received a grand jury subpoena issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee seeking documents related to USR and its financial relationships with physicians and other healthcare providers. The Company and USR are cooperating fully with the inquiry. The Company is currently unable to predict the timing or outcome of this matter, however, it is not unusual for such matters to continue for a considerable period of time. Responding to this matter will require management's attention and likely result in significant legal expense. To management's knowledge, the federal government has not initiated any proceedings against the Company at this time.

On March 27, 2013, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi by Superior MRI Services, Inc. The plaintiff is an alleged successor in interest to a former local competitor, P&L Contracting, Inc. Plaintiff alleges the Company disregarded Mississippi Certificate of Need ("CON") rules and regulations by operating without obtaining the appropriate authority, and is seeking in excess of $1,000 in damages as well as requesting injunctive relief. In January of 2014, the District Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on a number of procedural and substantive grounds. The plaintiff has appealed the District Court’s ruling and the Company has responded accordingly. At this time, the parties are awaiting a ruling from the appellate court. The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

On June 14, 2013, Alliance Oncology, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, filed a complaint against Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Inc. (“HVMA”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, including several claims seeking damages resulting from HVMA’s early termination of a long-term services agreement between the two companies. HVMA filed an answer to Alliance Oncology’s complaint on August 27, 2013. Without specifying its alleged damages, HVMA also asserted several counterclaims in its answer. The Company filed its answer to HVMA’s counterclaims on October 4, 2013, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted. Litigation is currently ongoing through the discovery process. The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time.

The Company from time to time is involved in routine litigation and regulatory matters incidental to the conduct of its business. The Company believes that resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.