LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 13 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We operate in a highly regulated industry and must deal with regulatory inquiries or investigations from time to time that may be instituted for a variety of reasons. We are also involved in a variety of civil litigation from time to time. We review all of our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel quarterly, and we will disclose an estimate of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses if and when we are able to make such an estimate and the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses is material to our financial statements. Class Action Lawsuits. As we have previously disclosed, we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other “similarly situated” customers of ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief. The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or “whistle blower”) action captioned United States of America ex rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390 which was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously disclosed. Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the “MDL Action”). On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the allegations therein. On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint and a Motion for Class Certification in the MDL Action. The Motion requests that the court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of certain of our small quantity customers who received rate increases. We intend to strongly contest the Motion. We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these class action lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) we do not know whether the court will certify any class of plaintiffs or, if any class is certified, how the class would be defined, and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates. Environmental Matters. Our Environmental Solutions business is regulated by federal, state and local laws enacted to regulate the discharge of materials into the environment, remediate contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. As a result of this continuing regulation, we frequently become a party to legal or administrative proceedings involving various governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in these proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or alleged responsibility under federal or state Superfund laws to remediate contamination at properties owned either by us or by other parties to which either we or the prior owners of certain of its facilities shipped wastes. From time to time, we may be subject to fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. We believe that the fines or other penalties that we may pay in connection with any pending regulatory proceedings of this nature will not, individually or in the aggregate, be material to our financial statements. On February 29, 2016, we entered into a statute of limitations tolling agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah relating to that Office’s investigation of the same facts underlying the notice of violation (the “NOV”) issued by the State of Utah Division of Air Quality (the “DAQ”) that resulted in our December 2014 settlement with the DAQ that we have previously disclosed. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating whether the matters forming the basis of the NOV constitute violations of the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes. Under the tolling agreement, the period from March 1, 2016 through July 31, 2016 will be excluded from any calculation of time for the purpose of determining the statute of limitations concerning any charges that we violated federal statutes. The agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt or wrongdoing on our part and cannot be construed as a waiver of any other rights or defenses that we may have in any resulting action or proceeding. We will continue to cooperate with the investigation.

NOTE 13 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We operate in a highly regulated industry and must deal with regulatory inquiries or investigations from time to time that may be instituted for a variety of reasons. We are also involved in a variety of civil litigation from time to time.

We review all of our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel quarterly, and we will disclose an estimate of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses if and when we are able to make such an estimate and the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses is material to our financial statements.

Class Action Lawsuits. As we have previously disclosed, we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other “similarly situated” customers of ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief.

The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or “whistle blower”) action captioned United States of America ex rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390 which was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously disclosed.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the “MDL Action”). On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the allegations therein.

On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint and a Motion for Class Certification in the MDL Action. The Motion requests that the court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of certain of our small quantity customers who received rate increases. We intend to strongly contest the Motion.

We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits.

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these class action lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) we do not know whether the court will certify any class of plaintiffs or, if any class is certified, how the class would be defined, and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates.

Environmental Matters. Our Environmental Solutions business is regulated by federal, state and local laws enacted to regulate the discharge of materials into the environment, remediate contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. As a result of this continuing regulation, we frequently become a party to legal or administrative proceedings involving various governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in these proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or alleged responsibility under federal or state Superfund laws to remediate contamination at properties owned either by us or by other parties to which either we or the prior owners of certain of its facilities shipped wastes. From time to time, we may be subject to fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. We believe that the fines or other penalties that we may pay in connection with any pending regulatory proceedings of this nature will not, individually or in the aggregate, be material to our financial statements.

On February 29, 2016, we entered into a statute of limitations tolling agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah relating to that Office’s investigation of the same facts underlying the notice of violation (the “NOV”) issued by the State of Utah Division of Air Quality (the “DAQ”) that resulted in our December 2014 settlement with the DAQ that we have previously disclosed. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating whether the matters forming the basis of the NOV constitute violations of the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes. Under the tolling agreement, the period from March 1, 2016 through July 31, 2016 will be excluded from any calculation of time for the purpose of determining the statute of limitations concerning any charges that we violated federal statutes. The agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt or wrongdoing on our part and cannot be construed as a waiver of any other rights or defenses that we may have in any resulting action or proceeding. We will continue to cooperate with the investigation.