COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation (including those described in more detail below), 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, commercial and contract disputes, professional liability claims, employee-related matters, transaction related disputes, securities and corporate law matters, and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies, Medicare or Medicaid payers and MCOs 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 receives civil investigative demands or other inquiries from various governmental bodies in the ordinary course of its business. Such inquiries can relate to the Company or other parties, including physicians and other health care providers. The Company works cooperatively to respond to appropriate requests for information. The Company also is 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 U.S. federal or state healthcare programs. The suits 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 healthcare field today. The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all statutes, regulations, and other requirements applicable to its commercial laboratory operations and drug development support services. The healthcare diagnostics and drug development industries are, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of the applicable statutes and regulations. Therefore, the applicable statutes and regulations could 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 civil and criminal penalties, fines, the loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations, additional liabilities from third-party claims, and/or exclusion from participation in government programs. Many of the current claims and legal actions against the Company are in preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company records an aggregate legal reserve, which is determined using calculations based on historical loss rates and assessment of trends experienced in settlements and defense costs. In accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 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. The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably probable loss for the proceedings described in more detail below in which damages either have not been specified or, in the Company'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 proceedings, however, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the adverse outcomes are probable and estimable, and it does not believe they will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial statements. As previously reported, the Company responded to an October 2007 subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General's regional office in New York. On August 17, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit, United States of America ex rel. NPT Associates v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, which alleges that the Company offered UnitedHealthcare kickbacks in the form of discounts in return for Medicare business. The Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company's billing practices violated the False Claims Acts of 14 states and the District of Columbia. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in October 2014 and Plaintiff was granted the right to replead. On January 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint under seal and to vacate the briefing schedule for the Company's Motion to Dismiss, while the government reviewed the amended complaint. The Court granted the motion and vacated the briefing dates. Plaintiff then filed the Amended Complaint under seal. On August 24, 2021, the U.S. government filed a notice indicating that it did not intend to intervene in the matter. On October 27, 2021, the Fourth Amended Complaint was unsealed. The Fourth Amended Complaint is similar to the Third Amended Complaint in that it alleges that the Company offered UnitedHealthcare kickbacks in the form of discounts in return for Medicare and Medicaid business, and it further alleges that the Company unlawfully charged Medicare amounts substantially in excess of its alleged usual charges. Similar to the Third Amended Complaint, the Fourth Amended Complaint alleges violations of the federal False Claims Act and the False Claims Act of 14 states and the District of Columbia. On February 3, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims. On August 29, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the Motion to Dismiss and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiff did not appeal the Court's order. In addition, the Company has received various other subpoenas since 2007 related to Medicaid billing. In October 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Michigan Department of Attorney General seeking documents related to its billing to Michigan Medicaid. The Company cooperated with this request. In October 2013, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the State of Texas Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Texas Medicaid. The Company cooperated with this request. On October 5, 2018, the Company received a second Civil Investigative Demand from the State of Texas Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Texas Medicaid. The Company cooperated with this request. On January 26, 2021, the Company was notified that a qui tam Petition was pending under seal in the District Court, 250th Judicial District, Travis County, Texas, and that the State of Texas has intervened. On April 14, 2021, the Petition was unsealed. The Petition alleges that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement to Texas Medicaid that were higher than permitted under Texas Medicaid’s alleged “best price” regulations, and that the Company offered remuneration to Texas health care providers in the form of discounted pricing for certain laboratory testing services in exchange for the providers’ referral of Texas Medicaid business to the Company. The Petition seeks actual and double damages and civil penalties, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. On August 1, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting the Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to the claim that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement to Texas Medicaid that were higher than permitted under Texas Medicaid's alleged “best price” regulations. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Suit and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and, on November 11, 2022, the Court entered a Judgment. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with respect to the Court's order granting the Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, referenced above. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On October 16, 2019, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit Court’s dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the lawsuit. The Court held oral arguments on December 9, 2020. On May 26, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion approving the result of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal in favor of the Plaintiff. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. In December 2014, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand issued pursuant to the U.S. False Claims Act from the U.S. Attorney's Office for South Carolina, which requested information regarding alleged remuneration and services provided by the Company to physicians who also received draw and processing/handling fees from competitor laboratories Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. (HDL) and Singulex, Inc. (Singulex). The Company cooperated with the request. On April 4, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Beaufort Division, unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit, United States of America ex rel. Scarlett Lutz, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, which alleges that the Company's financial relationships with referring physicians violate federal and state anti-kickback statutes. The Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company conspired with HDL and Singulex in violation of the Federal False Claims Act and the California and Illinois insurance fraud prevention acts by facilitating HDL's and Singulex's offers of illegal inducements to physicians and the referral of patients to HDL and Singulex for laboratory testing. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. Neither the U.S. government nor any state government has intervened in the lawsuit. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking the dismissal of the claims asserted under the California and Illinois insurance fraud prevention statutes, the conspiracy claim, the reverse False Claims Act claim, and all claims based on the theory that the Company performed medically unnecessary testing. On January 16, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims based on the theory that the Company performed medically unnecessary testing, the claims asserted under the California and Illinois insurance fraud prevention statutes, and the reverse False Claims Act claim. The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss as to the conspiracy claim. On March 12, 2021, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment related to all remaining claims. On June 16, 2021, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In December 2022, the parties reached a settlement to resolve the lawsuit. On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions. On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations. On August 16, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. On August 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On February 13, 2023, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On December 29, 2021, a related lawsuit, Nathaniel J. Nolan, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient acknowledgement of estimated financial responsibility form is misleading. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment under the consumer protection laws of Nevada and Florida that the form is materially misleading and deceptive, an injunction barring the use of the form, damages on behalf of an alleged class, and attorney's fees and expenses. On February 28, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims. On February 13, 2023, the Court entered an order granting the Company's Motion to Dismiss. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits. On April 1, 2019, Covance Research Products was served with a Grand Jury Subpoena issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Miami, Florida requiring the production of documents related to the importation into the United States of live non- human primate shipments originating from or transiting through China, Cambodia, and/or Vietnam from April 1, 2014 through March 28, 2019. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ. On May 14, 2019, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), an external collection agency, notified the Company about a security incident AMCA experienced that may have involved certain personal information about some of the Company’s patients (the AMCA Incident). The Company referred patient balances to AMCA only when direct collection efforts were unsuccessful. The Company’s systems were not impacted by the AMCA Incident. Upon learning of the AMCA Incident, the Company promptly stopped sending new collection requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from continuing to work on any pending collection requests from the Company. AMCA informed the Company that it appeared that an unauthorized user had access to AMCA’s system between August 1, 2018, and March 30, 2019, and that AMCA could not rule out the possibility that personal information on AMCA’s system was at risk during that time period. Information on AMCA’s affected system from the Company may have included name, address, and balance information for the patient and person responsible for payment, along with the patient’s phone number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service. The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance information may have been included for some individuals, and because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number for some individuals may also have been affected. No ordered tests, laboratory test results, or diagnostic information from the Company were in the AMCA affected system. The Company notified individuals for whom it had a valid mailing address. For the individuals whose Social Security Number was affected, the notice included an offer to enroll in credit monitoring and identity protection services that was provided free of charge for 24 months. Twenty-three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company related to the AMCA Incident in various U.S. District Courts. Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against other health care providers who used AMCA. These lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey. On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. On January 22, 2020, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss all claims. The consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the Company did not adequately protect its patients’ data and failed to timely notify those patients of the AMCA Incident. The Complaint asserted various causes of action, including but not limited to negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and the violation of state data protection statutes. The Complaint sought damages on behalf of a class of all affected Company customers. On December 16, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion to Dismiss. On March 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, and various state statutory claims, including a claim under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss certain claims of the Amended Complaint. The Company will vigorously defend the remaining claims in the multi-district litigation. The Company was served with a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Raymond Eugenio, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Lance Berberian, et al., filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on April 23, 2020. The complaint asserts derivative claims on the Company’s behalf against the Company’s board of directors and certain executive officers. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to ensure that the Company utilized proper cybersecurity safeguards and failed to implement a sufficient response to data security incidents, including the AMCA Incident. The complaint asserts derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks relief including damages, certain disclosures, and certain changes to the Company’s internal governance practices. On June 2, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Stay the lawsuit due to its overlap with the multi-district litigation referenced above. On July 2, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On July 14, 2020, the Court entered an order staying the lawsuit pending the resolution of the multi-district litigation. The lawsuit will be vigorously defended. Certain governmental entities have requested information from the Company related to the AMCA Incident. The Company received a request for information from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services. On April 28, 2020, OCR notified the Company of the closure of its inquiry. The Company has also received requests from a multi-state group of state Attorneys General and is cooperating with these requests for information. On January 31, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that visually impaired patients are unable to use the Company's touchscreen kiosks at Company patient service centers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar California statutes. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. On March 20, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations. In August 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. On April 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs and the Company each filed Motions for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On May 23, 2022, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. On June 6, 2022, the Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal the Order Granting Class Certification with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Company's Petition for Permission to Appeal the Order Granting Class Certification. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. On October 16, 2020, Ravgen Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit, Ravgen Inc. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of two Ravgen-owned U.S. patents. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, enhancement of those damages for willfulness, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. On September 28, 2022, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on the remaining patent at issue, finding that the Company willfully infringed Ravgen's patent, and awarded damages of $272 million. Plaintiff has filed post-trial motions seeking enhanced damages of up to $817 million based on the finding of willfulness, as well as attorney's fees and costs. The Company strongly disagrees with the verdict, based on a number of legal factors, and will vigorously defend the lawsuit through the appeal process. On June 4, 2021, the Company also instituted proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the Ravgen patent at issue in the trial. In November 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision upholding the validity of the Ravgen patent, and the Company has filed an appeal of this decision. On May 14, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America (Bermejo I) filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central District, alleging that certain non-exempt California-based employees were not properly compensated for driving time or properly paid wages upon termination of employment. The Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California Labor Code provisions and Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. On June 15, 2020, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On June 16, 2020, the Company was served with a Private Attorney General Act lawsuit by the same plaintiff in Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America (Bermejo II), filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central District, alleging that certain Company practices violated California Labor Code penalty provisions related to unpaid and minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid mean and rest break premiums, untimely payment of wages following separation of employment, failure to maintain accurate pay records, and non-reimbursement of business expenses. The second lawsuit seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On October 28, 2020, the court issued an order staying proceedings in Bermejo II pending resolution of Bermejo I. The second lawsuit seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On February 24, 2022, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding of the terms of a settlement of the Bermejo I and Bermejo II lawsuits, subject to court approval. If approved, the settlement will also resolve the Becker and Poole lawsuits discussed below. On June 14, 2021, a single plaintiff filed a Private Attorney General Act lawsuit, Becker v. Laboratory Corporation of America, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code, including that the Plaintiff was not properly compensated for work and overtime hours, not properly paid meal and rest break premiums, not reimbursed for certain business-related expenses, and received inaccurate wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. A settlement of the Bermejo I and Bermejo II lawsuits, if approved by the court, will resolve the Becker lawsuit. On November 23, 2021, the Company was served with a single plaintiff Private Attorney General Act lawsuit, Poole v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code, including that Plaintiff was not properly paid wages owed, not properly paid meal and rest break premiums, not reimbursed for certain business related expenses, and other allegations including the untimely payment of wages and receipt of inaccurate wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. A settlement of the Bermejo I and Bermejo II lawsuits, if approved by the court, will resolve the Poole lawsuit. On October 5, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Williams v. LabCorp Employer Services, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that certain non-exempt California-based employees were not properly compensated for work and overtime hours, not properly paid meal and rest break premiums, not reimbursed for certain business-related expenses, not properly paid for driving or wait times, and received inaccurate wage statements. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code. On November 4, 2020, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On June 24, 2021, the District Court remanded the case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on the grounds that potential damages did not meet the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), jurisdictional threshold. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated September 9, 2022, which is pending court approval. On August 14, 2020, the Company was served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the State of Colorado Office of the Attorney General requiring the production of documents related to urine drug testing in all states. The Company is cooperating with this request. On February 7, 2022, the Company was served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the DOJ in Camden, New Jersey requiring the production of documents related to non-invasive prenatal screening tests. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ. On June 27, 2022, the Company was served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the DOJ in Boston, Massachusetts requiring the production of documents related to urine drug testing. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ. There are various other pending legal proceedings involving the Company including, but not limited to, additional employment-related lawsuits, professional liability lawsuits, and commercial lawsuits. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, the likelihood of loss is remote and any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows, either individually or in the aggregate. 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.

The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation (including those described in more detail below), 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, commercial and contract disputes, professional liability claims, employee-related matters, transaction related disputes, securities and corporate law matters, and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies, Medicare or Medicaid payers and MCOs 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 receives civil investigative demands or other inquiries from various governmental bodies in the ordinary course of its business. Such inquiries can relate to the Company or other parties, including physicians and other health care providers. The Company works cooperatively to respond to appropriate requests for information.

The Company also is 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 U.S. federal or state healthcare programs. The suits 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 healthcare field today.

The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all statutes, regulations, and other requirements applicable to its commercial laboratory operations and drug development support services. The healthcare diagnostics and drug development industries are, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of the applicable statutes and regulations. Therefore, the applicable statutes and regulations could 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

Many of the current claims and legal actions against the Company are in preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company records an aggregate legal reserve, which is determined using calculations based on historical loss rates and assessment of trends experienced in settlements and defense costs. In accordance with FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 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.

The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably probable loss for the proceedings described in more detail below in which damages either have not been specified or, in the Company'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 proceedings, however, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the adverse outcomes are probable and estimable, and it does not believe they will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial statements.

As previously reported, the Company responded to an October 2007 subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General's regional office in New York. On August 17, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit, United States of America ex rel. NPT Associates v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, which alleges that the Company offered UnitedHealthcare kickbacks in the form of discounts in return for Medicare business. The Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company's billing practices violated the False Claims Acts of 14 states and the District of Columbia. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted in October 2014 and Plaintiff was granted the right to replead. On January 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint under seal and to vacate the briefing schedule for the Company's Motion to Dismiss, while the government reviewed the amended complaint. The Court granted the motion and vacated the briefing dates. Plaintiff then filed the Amended Complaint under seal. On August 24, 2021, the U.S. government filed a notice indicating that it did not intend to intervene in the matter. On October 27, 2021, the Fourth Amended Complaint was unsealed. The Fourth Amended Complaint is similar to the Third Amended Complaint in that it alleges that the Company offered UnitedHealthcare kickbacks in the form of discounts in return for Medicare and Medicaid business, and it further alleges that the Company unlawfully charged Medicare amounts substantially in excess of its alleged usual charges. Similar to the Third Amended Complaint, the Fourth Amended Complaint alleges violations of the federal False Claims Act and the False Claims Act of 14 states and the District of Columbia. On February 3, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims. On August 29, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the Motion to Dismiss and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiff did not appeal the Court's order.

In addition, the Company has received various other subpoenas since 2007 related to Medicaid billing. In October 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Michigan Department of Attorney General seeking documents related to its billing to Michigan Medicaid. The Company cooperated with this request. In October 2013, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the State of Texas Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Texas Medicaid. The Company cooperated with this request. On October 5, 2018, the Company received a second Civil Investigative Demand from the State of Texas Office of the Attorney General requesting documents related to its billing to Texas Medicaid. The Company cooperated with this request. On January 26, 2021, the Company was notified that a qui tam Petition was pending under seal in the District Court, 250th Judicial District, Travis County, Texas, and that the State of Texas has intervened. On April 14, 2021, the Petition was unsealed. The Petition alleges that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement to Texas Medicaid that were higher than permitted under Texas Medicaid’s alleged “best price” regulations, and that the Company offered remuneration to Texas health care providers in the form of discounted pricing for certain laboratory testing services in exchange for the providers’ referral of Texas Medicaid business to the Company. The Petition seeks actual and double damages and civil penalties, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. On August 1, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting the Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to the claim that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement to Texas Medicaid that were higher than permitted under Texas Medicaid's alleged “best price” regulations. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Suit and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and, on November 11, 2022, the Court entered a Judgment. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with respect to the Court's order granting the Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, referenced above. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On October 16, 2019, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit Court’s dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the lawsuit. The Court held oral arguments on December 9, 2020. On May 26, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion approving the result of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal in favor of the Plaintiff. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

In December 2014, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand issued pursuant to the U.S. False Claims Act from the U.S. Attorney's Office for South Carolina, which requested information regarding alleged remuneration and services provided by the Company to physicians who also received draw and processing/handling fees from competitor laboratories Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. (HDL) and Singulex, Inc. (Singulex). The Company cooperated with the request. On April 4, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Beaufort Division, unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit, United States of America ex rel. Scarlett Lutz, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, which alleges that the Company's financial relationships with referring physicians violate federal and state anti-kickback statutes. The Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company conspired with HDL and Singulex in violation of the Federal False Claims Act and the California and Illinois insurance fraud prevention acts by facilitating HDL's and Singulex's offers of illegal inducements to physicians and the referral of patients to HDL and Singulex for laboratory testing. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses. Neither the U.S. government nor any state government has intervened in the lawsuit. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking the dismissal of the claims asserted under the California and Illinois insurance fraud prevention statutes, the conspiracy claim, the reverse False Claims Act claim, and all claims based on the theory that the Company performed medically unnecessary testing. On January 16, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims based on the theory that the Company performed medically unnecessary testing, the claims asserted under the California and Illinois insurance fraud prevention statutes, and the reverse False Claims Act claim. The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss as to the conspiracy claim. On March 12, 2021, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment related to all remaining claims. On June 16, 2021, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In December 2022, the parties reached a settlement to resolve the lawsuit.

On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions. On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations. On August 16, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. On August 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On February 13, 2023, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On December 29, 2021, a related lawsuit, Nathaniel J. Nolan, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient acknowledgement of estimated financial responsibility form is misleading. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment under the consumer protection laws of Nevada and Florida that the form is materially misleading and deceptive, an injunction barring the use of the form, damages on behalf of an alleged class, and attorney's fees and expenses. On February 28, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims. On February 13, 2023, the Court entered an order granting the Company's Motion to Dismiss. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits.

On May 14, 2019, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), an external collection agency, notified the Company about a security incident AMCA experienced that may have involved certain personal information about some of the Company’s patients (the AMCA Incident). The Company referred patient balances to AMCA only when direct collection efforts were unsuccessful. The Company’s systems were not impacted by the AMCA Incident. Upon learning of the AMCA Incident, the Company promptly stopped sending new collection requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from continuing to work on any pending collection requests from the Company. AMCA informed the Company that it appeared that an unauthorized user had access to AMCA’s system between August 1, 2018, and March 30, 2019, and that AMCA could not rule out the possibility that personal information on AMCA’s system was at risk during that time period. Information on AMCA’s affected system from the Company may have included name, address, and balance information for the patient and person responsible for payment, along with the patient’s phone number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service. The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance information may have been included for some individuals, and because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number for some individuals may also have been affected. No ordered tests, laboratory test results, or diagnostic information from the Company were in the AMCA affected system. The Company notified individuals for whom it had a valid mailing address. For the individuals whose Social Security Number was affected, the notice included an offer to enroll in credit monitoring and identity protection services that was provided free of charge for 24 months.

Twenty-three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company related to the AMCA Incident in various U.S. District Courts. Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against other health care providers who used AMCA. These lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey. On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. On January 22, 2020, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss all claims. The consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the Company did not adequately protect its patients’ data and failed to timely notify those patients of the AMCA Incident. The Complaint asserted various causes of action, including but not limited to negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and the violation of state data protection statutes. The Complaint sought damages on behalf of a class of all affected Company customers. On December 16, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion to Dismiss. On March 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, and various state statutory claims, including a claim under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss certain claims of the Amended Complaint. The Company will vigorously defend the remaining claims in the multi-district litigation.

The Company was served with a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Raymond Eugenio, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Lance Berberian, et al., filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on April 23, 2020. The complaint asserts derivative claims on the Company’s behalf against the Company’s board of directors and certain executive officers. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to ensure that the Company utilized proper cybersecurity safeguards and failed to implement a sufficient response to data security incidents, including the AMCA Incident. The complaint asserts derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks relief including damages, certain disclosures, and certain changes to the Company’s internal governance practices. On June 2, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Stay the lawsuit due to its overlap with the multi-district litigation referenced above. On July 2, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On July 14, 2020, the Court entered an order staying the lawsuit pending the resolution of the multi-district litigation. The lawsuit will be vigorously defended.

On January 31, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that visually impaired patients are unable to use the Company's touchscreen kiosks at Company patient service centers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar California statutes. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. On March 20, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations. In August 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. On April 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs and the Company each filed Motions for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On May 23, 2022, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. On June 6, 2022, the Company

On October 16, 2020, Ravgen Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit, Ravgen Inc. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of two Ravgen-owned U.S. patents. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, enhancement of those damages for willfulness, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. On September 28, 2022, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on the remaining patent at issue, finding that the Company willfully infringed Ravgen's patent, and awarded damages of $272 million. Plaintiff has filed post-trial motions seeking enhanced damages of up to $817 million based on the finding of willfulness, as well as attorney's fees and costs. The Company strongly disagrees with the verdict, based on a number of legal factors, and will vigorously defend the lawsuit through the appeal process. On June 4, 2021, the Company also instituted proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of the Ravgen patent at issue in the trial. In November 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision upholding the validity of the Ravgen patent, and the Company has filed an appeal of this decision.

On May 14, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America (Bermejo I) filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central District, alleging that certain non-exempt California-based employees were not properly compensated for driving time or properly paid wages upon termination of employment. The Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California Labor Code provisions and Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. On June 15, 2020, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On June 16, 2020, the Company was served with a Private Attorney General Act lawsuit by the same plaintiff in Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America (Bermejo II), filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central District, alleging that certain Company practices violated California Labor Code penalty provisions related to unpaid and minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid mean and rest break premiums, untimely payment of wages following separation of employment, failure to maintain accurate pay records, and non-reimbursement of business expenses. The second lawsuit seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On October 28, 2020, the court issued an order staying proceedings in Bermejo II pending resolution of Bermejo I. The second lawsuit seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On February 24, 2022, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding of the terms of a settlement of the Bermejo I and Bermejo II lawsuits, subject to court approval. If approved, the settlement will also resolve the Becker and Poole lawsuits discussed below.

On June 14, 2021, a single plaintiff filed a Private Attorney General Act lawsuit, Becker v. Laboratory Corporation of America, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code, including that the Plaintiff was not properly compensated for work and overtime hours, not properly paid meal and rest break premiums, not reimbursed for certain business-related expenses, and received inaccurate wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. A settlement of the Bermejo I and Bermejo II lawsuits, if approved by the court, will resolve the Becker lawsuit.

On November 23, 2021, the Company was served with a single plaintiff Private Attorney General Act lawsuit, Poole v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code, including that Plaintiff was not properly paid wages owed, not properly paid meal and rest break premiums, not reimbursed for certain business related expenses, and other allegations including the untimely payment of wages and receipt of inaccurate wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. A settlement of the Bermejo I and Bermejo II lawsuits, if approved by the court, will resolve the Poole lawsuit.

On October 5, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Williams v. LabCorp Employer Services, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that certain non-exempt California-based employees were not properly compensated for work and overtime hours, not properly paid meal and rest break premiums, not reimbursed for certain business-related expenses, not properly paid for driving or wait times, and received inaccurate wage statements. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code. On November 4, 2020, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On June 24, 2021, the District Court remanded the case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on the grounds that potential damages did not meet the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), jurisdictional threshold. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated September 9, 2022, which is pending court approval.

There are various other pending legal proceedings involving the Company including, but not limited to, additional employment-related lawsuits, professional liability lawsuits, and commercial lawsuits. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, in the opinion of the Company, the likelihood of loss is remote and any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows, either individually or in the aggregate.

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.