COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Notes To Financial Statements [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved in a number of judicial, regulatory, and arbitration proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of the Company's business activities. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company records an aggregate legal reserve, which is determined using actuarial calculations around historical loss rates and assessment of trends experienced in settlements and defense costs. In accordance with ASC 450 “Contingencies”, the Company establishes reserves for judicial, regulatory, and arbitration matters outside the aggregate legal reserve if and when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable and would exceed the aggregate legal reserve. When loss contingencies are not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish separate reserves. Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for cases described below in which damages either have not been specified or, in management's judgment, are unsupported and/or exaggerated and (i) the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (iv) there are novel legal issues to be presented. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. A subsidiary of the Company, DIANON Systems, Inc. (“DIANON”), is the appellant in a wrongful termination lawsuit originally filed by G. Berry Schumann in Superior Court in the State of Connecticut. After a jury trial, the state court entered judgment against DIANON, with total damages, attorney's fees, and pre-judgment interest payable by DIANON, of approximately $10.0. DIANON filed a notice of appeal in December 2009, and the case has been transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Court heard oral argument on May 18, 2011 and the parties await the Court's decision on DIANON's appeal. As previously reported on July 14, 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the previously disclosed lawsuit, California ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., to avoid the uncertainty and costs associated with prolonged litigation. The original lawsuit was brought against the Company and several other major laboratories operating in California and alleged that the defendants improperly billed the state Medicaid program and, therefore, violated the California False Claims Act. The original complaint was dismissed on the basis of (i) misjoinder and (ii) lack of particularity in the claims and a separate amended complaint was filed against the Company on December 14, 2009. The complaint against the Company sought a refund of alleged overpayments made to the Company from November 7, 1995 through November 2009, plus simple interest of 7% per year, calculated as of the filing date to total $97.5. In addition, the suit sought continuing damages past November 2009 plus treble damages, civil penalties of $0.01 per each alleged false claim, recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Company filed an answer to the new Complaint on February 5, 2010. Pursuant to the settlement in principle, the Company will pay $49.5 to resolve all claims brought against the Company in the lawsuit without any admission of liability. As a result of the settlement in principle, the Company recorded litigation settlement expense of $34.5 (net of a previously recorded reserve of $15.0) in the second quarter of 2011. The settlement is subject to the negotiation and execution of a Settlement Agreement and Release. In addition, the Company has received three other subpoenas since 2007 related to Medicaid billing. In June 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Florida requesting documents related to its billing to Florida Medicaid. In February 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the Commonwealth of Virginia seeking documents related to the Company's billing for state Medicaid. In October 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Michigan seeking documents related to its billing to Michigan Medicaid. The Company also responded to an October 2007 subpoena from the United States Office of Inspector General's regional office in New York and a September 2009 subpoena from the United States Office of Inspector General's regional office in Massachusetts regarding certain of its billing practices. The Company is cooperating with the requests. On August 19, 2010, Aetna, Inc., Aetna Health Holdings, LLC and Aetna Health Management, LLC filed a lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging unfair competition, misrepresentation, interference and breach of contract, and violation of trade secret laws. Aetna is seeking unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and the Court issued an order dismissing the case on May 26, 2011. On June 6, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling, and on July 18, 2011, the Court issued an order denying the motion. The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation, arising in the ordinary course of business. Some of these actions involve claims that are substantial in amount. These matters include, but are not limited to, intellectual property disputes, professional liability, employee related matters, and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies and Medicare or Medicaid payers and managed care payers reviewing billing practices or requesting comment on allegations of billing irregularities that are brought to their attention through billing audits or third parties. The Company works cooperatively to respond to appropriate requests for information. The Company is also named from time to time in suits brought under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and comparable state laws. These suits typically allege that the Company has made false statements and/or certifications in connection with claims for payment from federal or state health care programs. They may remain under seal (hence, unknown to the Company) for some time while the government decides whether to intervene on behalf of the qui tam plaintiff. Such claims are an inevitable part of doing business in the health care field today. The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all statutes, regulations and other requirements applicable to its clinical laboratory operations. The clinical laboratory testing industry is, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of these statutes and regulations. There can be no assurance therefore that those applicable statutes and regulations will not be interpreted or applied by a prosecutorial, regulatory or judicial authority in a manner that would adversely affect the Company. Potential sanctions for violation of these statutes and regulations include significant fines and the loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations. Under the Company's present insurance programs, coverage is obtained for catastrophic exposure as well as those risks required to be insured by law or contract. The Company is responsible for the uninsured portion of losses related primarily to general, professional and vehicle liability, certain medical costs and workers' compensation. The self-insured retentions are on a per occurrence basis without any aggregate annual limit. Provisions for losses expected under these programs are recorded based upon the Company's estimates of the aggregated liability of claims incurred. At June 30, 2011, the Company had provided letters of credit aggregating approximately $37.3, primarily in connection with certain insurance programs. The Company's availability under its Revolving Facility is reduced by the amount of these letters of credit. At June 30, 2011, the Company was a guarantor on approximately $1.0 of equipment leases. These leases were entered into by a joint venture in which the Company owns a 50% interest and have a remaining term of approximately one year.

11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved in a number of judicial, regulatory, and arbitration proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of the Company's business activities. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages.

The Company records an aggregate legal reserve, which is determined using actuarial calculations around historical loss rates and assessment of trends experienced in settlements and defense costs. In accordance with ASC 450 “Contingencies”, the Company establishes reserves for judicial, regulatory, and arbitration matters outside the aggregate legal reserve if and when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable and would exceed the aggregate legal reserve. When loss contingencies are not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish separate reserves.

Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for cases described below in which damages either have not been specified or, in management's judgment, are unsupported and/or exaggerated and (i) the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (iv) there are novel legal issues to be presented. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

A subsidiary of the Company, DIANON Systems, Inc. (“DIANON”), is the appellant in a wrongful termination lawsuit originally filed by G. Berry Schumann in Superior Court in the State of Connecticut. After a jury trial, the state court entered judgment against DIANON, with total damages, attorney's fees, and pre-judgment interest payable by DIANON, of approximately $10.0. DIANON filed a notice of appeal in December 2009, and the case has been transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Court heard oral argument on May 18, 2011 and the parties await the Court's decision on DIANON's appeal.

As previously reported on July 14, 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the previously disclosed lawsuit, California ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., to avoid the uncertainty and costs associated with prolonged litigation. The original lawsuit was brought against the Company and several other major laboratories operating in California and alleged that the defendants improperly billed the state Medicaid program and, therefore, violated the California False Claims Act. The original complaint was dismissed on the basis of (i) misjoinder and (ii) lack of particularity in the claims and a separate amended complaint was filed against the Company on December 14, 2009. The complaint against the Company sought a refund of alleged overpayments made to the Company from November 7, 1995 through November 2009, plus simple interest of 7% per year, calculated as of the filing date to total $97.5. In addition, the suit sought continuing damages past November 2009 plus treble damages, civil penalties of $0.01 per each alleged false claim, recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Company filed an answer to the new Complaint on February 5, 2010. Pursuant to the settlement in principle, the Company will pay $49.5 to resolve all claims brought against the Company in the lawsuit without any admission of liability. As a result of the settlement in principle, the Company recorded litigation settlement expense of $34.5 (net of a previously recorded reserve of $15.0) in the second quarter of 2011. The settlement is subject to the negotiation and execution of a Settlement Agreement and Release.

In addition, the Company has received three other subpoenas since 2007 related to Medicaid billing. In June 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Florida requesting documents related to its billing to Florida Medicaid. In February 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the Commonwealth of Virginia seeking documents related to the Company's billing for state Medicaid. In October 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Michigan seeking documents related to its billing to Michigan Medicaid. The Company also responded to an October 2007 subpoena from the United States Office of Inspector General's regional office in New York and a September 2009 subpoena from the United States Office of Inspector General's regional office in Massachusetts regarding certain of its billing practices. The Company is cooperating with the requests.

On August 19, 2010, Aetna, Inc., Aetna Health Holdings, LLC and Aetna Health Management, LLC filed a lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging unfair competition, misrepresentation, interference and breach of contract, and violation of trade secret laws. Aetna is seeking unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and the Court issued an order dismissing the case on May 26, 2011. On June 6, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling, and on July 18, 2011, the Court issued an order denying the motion.

The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation, arising in the ordinary course of business. Some of these actions involve claims that are substantial in amount. These matters include, but are not limited to, intellectual property disputes, professional liability, employee related matters, and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies and Medicare or Medicaid payers and managed care payers reviewing billing practices or requesting comment on allegations of billing irregularities that are brought to their attention through billing audits or third parties. The Company works cooperatively to respond to appropriate requests for information.

The Company is also named from time to time in suits brought under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and comparable state laws. These suits typically allege that the Company has made false statements and/or certifications in connection with claims for payment from federal or state health care programs. They may remain under seal (hence, unknown to the Company) for some time while the government decides whether to intervene on behalf of the qui tam plaintiff. Such claims are an inevitable part of doing business in the health care field today.

The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all statutes, regulations and other requirements applicable to its clinical laboratory operations. The clinical laboratory testing industry is, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of these statutes and regulations. There can be no assurance therefore that those applicable statutes and regulations will not be interpreted or applied by a prosecutorial, regulatory or judicial authority in a manner that would adversely affect the Company. Potential sanctions for violation of these statutes and regulations include significant fines and the loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations.

Under the Company's present insurance programs, coverage is obtained for catastrophic exposure as well as those risks required to be insured by law or contract. The Company is responsible for the uninsured portion of losses related primarily to general, professional and vehicle liability, certain medical costs and workers' compensation. The self-insured retentions are on a per occurrence basis without any aggregate annual limit. Provisions for losses expected under these programs are recorded based upon the Company's estimates of the aggregated liability of claims incurred. At June 30, 2011, the Company had provided letters of credit aggregating approximately $37.3, primarily in connection with certain insurance programs. The Company's availability under its Revolving Facility is reduced by the amount of these letters of credit.

At June 30, 2011, the Company was a guarantor on approximately $1.0 of equipment leases. These leases were entered into by a joint venture in which the Company owns a 50% interest and have a remaining term of approximately one year.