On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the “District Court”) against the Company and certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the Court on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, the District Court issued an order consolidating the putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal Derivative Actions (described immediately below) for pre-trial purposes. In the same order, the District Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs (together, the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”) for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, the District Court also consolidated the ERISA class action lawsuit (described below) with the putative securities class actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June 28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied on April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”). On October 2, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. On October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc, or as a whole court. On December 29, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the defendants' motion for en banc review of the Fifth Circuit panel's decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the case. The case now returns to the District Court for further proceedings. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of this matter.

On April 23, 2014, with no admissions of liability on our part, we entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice relating to certain of our clinical and business operations. Concurrently with our entry into this agreement, we entered into a corporate integrity agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General-HHS. The CIA formalizes various aspects of our already existing ethics and compliance programs and contains other requirements designed to help ensure our ongoing compliance with federal health care program requirements. Among other things, the CIA requires us to maintain our existing compliance program and compliance committee and compliance committee of the Board of Directors; provide certain compliance training; continue screening new and current employees against certain lists to ensure they are not ineligible to participate in federal health care programs; engage an independent review organization to perform certain auditing and reviews and prepare certain reports regarding our compliance with federal health care programs, our billing submissions to federal health care programs and our compliance and risk mitigation programs; and provide certain reports and management certifications to Office of Inspector General-HHS. Among other things, the CIA requires that we report substantial overpayments that we discover we have received from federal health care programs, as well as probable violations of federal health care laws. Upon breach of the CIA, we could become liable for payment of certain stipulated penalties, or could be excluded from participation in federal health care programs. The corporate integrity agreement has a term of five years.

On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against us in which three former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked over forty hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. More specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in their misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them overtime pay. Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week over forty, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work, in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based on misclassification. On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling requesting that the statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this lawsuit is issued following conditional certification. Following a motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on December 3, 2013, the Court modified this order, holding that putative class members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29, 2012 through the date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' July 10, 2013 motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims and authorized issuance of notice to putative class members to provide them an opportunity to opt in to the action. On April 17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class members. The period within which putative class members were permitted to opt in to the action expired on July 16, 2014.

On September 10, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut case filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a new claim under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act (“KWHA”) alleging that the Company did not pay certain home health clinicians working in the Commonwealth of Kentucky all of the overtime wages they were owed, either because the Company misclassified them as exempt from overtime or, while treating them as overtime eligible, did not properly pay them overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week. On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back five years before the filing of their original complaint under the KWHA. On October 1, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to amend. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their motion. On December 12, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add the claims under the KWHA. The Company and the plaintiffs have agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement of the Connecticut case, and on February 23, 2015 filed a joint motion to stay proceedings for six months while they pursue this process, which was granted by the Court on February 24, 2015. There can be no assurance that the proposed mediation process will lead to a resolution of this matter.

On September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us in which a former employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, thereby misclassifying her as an exempt employee and entitling her to overtime pay. The plaintiff alleges violations of Federal and state law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of similar employees who were or are employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Illinois statute. On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay the case pending resolution of class certification issues and dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case referenced above.

We are unable to assess the probable outcome or reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from the securities and wage and hour litigation described above. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities and wage and hour litigation matters. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the securities and wage and hour matters described above or the impact of any of the inquiry or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate.

On March 1 and March 2, 2015, we provided official notice under Federal and state data privacy laws concerning the outcome of an extensive risk management process to locate and verify our large computer inventory. The process identified approximately 142 encrypted computers and laptops for which reports were required under federal and state data privacy laws. We have no indication of external hacking into our network, and no evidence that any patients or former patients have suffered any actual harm. Depending on the device, the patient information included any or all of the following: name, address, Social Security number, date of birth, insurance ID numbers, medical records and other personally identifiable data. The devices at issue were originally assigned to Company clinicians and other team members who left the Company between 2011 and 2014, and represent approximately 0.3% of the total number of devices that were used at the Company during that time period. We reported these devices to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, state agencies, and approximately 6,909 individuals whose information may be involved, as required under applicable law and in an abundance of caution because we could not rule out unauthorized access to patient data on the devices. We understand that the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OCR”), will review our compliance with applicable laws, as is typical for any data breach involving more than 500 individuals. Once such a review, or any other regulatory review, is formally commenced, we intend to cooperate with OCR and any other applicable regulatory authorities.

We recognize that additional putative securities class action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that other investigations and actions could be commenced.

In addition to the matters referenced in this note, we are involved in legal actions in the normal course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages. We do not believe that these normal course actions, when finally concluded and determined, will have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, we are subject to audits under various governmental programs in which third party firms engaged by CMS conduct extensive review of claims data to identify potential improper payments under the Medicare program.

In January 2010, our subsidiary that provides home health services in Dayton, Ohio received from a Medicare Program Safeguard Contractor (“PSC”) a request for records regarding 137 claims submitted by the subsidiary paid from January 2, 2008 through November 10, 2009 (the “Claim Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. Based on the PSC's findings for 114 of the claims, which were extrapolated to all claims for home health services provided by the Dayton subsidiary paid during the Claim Period, on March 9, 2011, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment of approximately $5.6 million. We dispute these findings, and our Dayton subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. Most recently, a consolidated administrative law judge (“ALJ”) hearing was held in late March 2013. In January 2014, the ALJ found fully in favor of our Dayton subsidiary on 74 appeals and partially in favor of our Dayton subsidiary on eight appeals. Taking into account the ALJ's decision, certain determinations that our Dayton subsidiary decided not to appeal as well as certain determinations made by the MAC, of the 114 claims that were originally extrapolated by the MAC, 76 claims have now been decided in favor of our Dayton subsidiary in full, 10 claims have been decided in favor of our Dayton subsidiary in part, and 28 claims have been decided against or not appealed by our Dayton subsidiary. The ALJ has ordered the MAC to recalculate the extrapolation amount based on the ALJ's decision. The Medicare Appeals Council can decide on its own motion to review the ALJ's decisions. As of December 31, 2014, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

In July 2010, our subsidiary that provides hospice services in Florence, South Carolina received from a Zone Program Integrity Contractor (“ZPIC”) a request for records regarding a sample of 30 beneficiaries who received services from the subsidiary during the period of January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010 (the “Review Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. We acquired the hospice operations subject to this review on August 1, 2009; the Review Period covers time periods both before and after our ownership of these hospice operations. Based on the ZPIC's findings for 16 beneficiaries, which were extrapolated to all claims for hospice services provided by the Florence subsidiary billed during the Review Period, on June 6, 2011, the MAC for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment. We dispute these findings, and our Florence subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. Most recently, an ALJ hearing was held in early January 2015. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the ALJ's decision. The current alleged extrapolated overpayment is $6.1 million. In the event we pay any amount of this alleged overpayment, we are indemnified by the prior owners of the hospice operations for amounts relating to the period prior to August 1, 2009. As of December 31, 2014, we have recorded no liability for this claim as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

We have leased office space at various locations under non-cancelable agreements that expire between 2015 and 2021, and require various minimum annual rentals. Our typical operating leases are for lease terms of one to seven years and may include, in addition to base rental amounts, certain landlord pass-through costs for our pro-rata share of the lessor's real estate taxes, utilities and common area maintenance costs. Some of our operating leases contain escalation clauses, in which annual minimum base rentals increase over the term of the lease.

Total minimum rental commitments as of December 31, 2014 are as follows (amounts in millions):

	2015	$	20.4
	2016		14.2
	2017		9.0
	2018		4.7
	2019		1.8
	Future years		0.3
	Total	$	50.4

Future rental commitments for our discontinued operations locations amounted to $0.3 million as of December 31, 2014. Rent expense for non-cancelable operating leases was $26.5 million, $29.8 million and $30.7 million for 2014, 2013 and 2012.

We are obligated for certain costs associated with our insurance programs, including employee health, workers' compensation and professional liability. While we maintain various insurance programs to cover these risks, we are self-insured for a substantial portion of our potential claims. We recognize our obligations associated with these costs, up to specified deductible limits in the period in which a claim is incurred, including with respect to both reported claims and claims incurred but not reported. These costs have generally been estimated based on historical data of our claims experience. Such estimates, and the resulting reserves, are reviewed and updated by us on a quarterly basis.

The following table presents details of our insurance programs, including amounts accrued for the periods indicated (amounts in millions) in accrued expenses in our accompanying balance sheets. The amounts accrued below represent our total estimated liability for individual claims that are less than our noted insurance coverage amounts, which can include outstanding claims and claims incurred but not reported.

		As of December 31,
	Type of Insurance		2014		2013
	Health insurance	$	11.2	$	12.2
	Workers' compensation		20.8		17.7
	Professional liability		3.9		4.7
			35.9		34.6
	Less: long-term portion		(1.0)		(1.2)
		$	34.9	$	33.4

The retention limit per claim for our health insurance, worker's compensation and professional liability is $0.9 million, $0.5 million and $0.3 million, respectively.

We have commitments related to employment contracts with a number of our senior executives. These contracts generally commit us to pay severance benefits under certain circumstances.

We are subject to various other types of claims and disputes arising in the ordinary course of our business. While the resolution of such issues is not presently determinable, we believe that the ultimate resolution of such matters will not have a significant effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.