Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies The majority of the Company’s revenues are from government programs and may be subject to adjustment as a result of: (i) examination by government agencies or contractors, for which the resolution of any matters raised may take extended periods of time to finalize; (ii) differing interpretations of government regulations by different Medicare contractors or regulatory authorities; (iii) differing opinions regarding a patient’s medical diagnosis or the medical necessity of services provided; and (iv) retroactive applications or interpretations of governmental requirements. In addition, the Company’s revenues from commercial payors may be subject to adjustment as a result of potential claims for refunds, as a result of government actions or as a result of other claims by commercial payors. The Company operates in a highly regulated industry and is a party to various lawsuits, claims, governmental investigations and audits (including investigations resulting from its obligation to self-report suspected violations of law) and other legal proceedings. The Company records accruals for certain legal proceedings and regulatory matters to the extent that the Company determines an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, the Company’s total recorded accruals with respect to legal proceedings and regulatory matters, net of anticipated third party recoveries, were approximately $69,300 for both periods. While these accruals reflect the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss for those matters as of the dates of those accruals, the recorded amounts may differ materially from the actual amount of the losses for those matters, and any anticipated third party recoveries for any such losses may not ultimately be recoverable. Additionally, in some cases, no estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made because of the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings and regulatory matters, which may be exacerbated by various factors, including that they may involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages or may involve fines, penalties or non-monetary remedies; present novel legal theories or legal uncertainties; involve disputed facts; represent a shift in regulatory policy; are in the early stages of the proceedings; or result in a change of business practices. Further, there may be various levels of judicial review available to the Company in connection with any such proceeding. The following is a description of certain lawsuits, claims, governmental investigations and audits and other legal proceedings to which the Company is subject. Inquiries by the Federal Government and Certain Related Civil Proceedings Swoben Private Civil Suit: In April 2013, HealthCare Partners (HCP), now known as the Company’s DMG subsidiary, was one of several defendants served with a civil complaint filed by a former employee of SCAN Health Plan (SCAN), an HMO. On July 13, 2009, pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act (FCA) and the California False Claims Act, James M. Swoben, as relator, filed his initial qui tam action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purportedly on behalf of the United States of America and the State of California against SCAN, and certain other defendants whose identities were under seal. The allegations in the complaint relate to alleged overpayments received from government healthcare programs. In 2009 and 2010, the relator twice amended his complaint and added additional defendants, and in November 2011, he filed his Third Amended Complaint under seal alleging violations of the federal FCA and the California False Claims Act, and added additional defendants, including HCP and certain health insurance companies (the defendant HMOs). The allegations in the complaint against HCP relate to patient diagnosis coding to determine reimbursement in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, referred to as HCC and RAF scores. The complaint sought monetary damages and civil penalties as well as costs and expenses. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reviewed these allegations and in January 2013 declined to intervene in the case. HCP and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, and the court dismissed with prejudice the claims and judgment was entered in September 2013. Upon the plaintiff’s appeal, a panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned the trial court’s ruling and vacated the dismissal of the case. The Company, with certain defendants, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, but in December 2016, the Ninth Circuit rejected the petition and determined the relator should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint, and remanded the case back to district court. In March 2017, the relator filed his Fourth Amended Complaint alleging that HCP and certain health insurance companies employed one-way retrospective reviews that were designed only to identify additional diagnoses that would be submitted to CMS for risk adjustment purposes, and thereby drive higher risk scores that would increase the capitated payments made by the federal government under the MA program. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to defend accordingly. 2015 U.S. Attorney Transportation Investigation: In February 2015, the Company announced that it received six administrative subpoenas from the OIG for medical records from six different dialysis centers in southern California operated by the Company. Specifically, each subpoena sought the medical records of a single patient of each respective dialysis center. In February 2016, the Company received four additional subpoenas for four additional dialysis centers in southern California. The subpoenas were similarly limited in scope to the subpoenas received in 2015. On February 8, 2017, the Company was served with a qui tam complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Company has been advised by an attorney with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California that the qui tam is related to the investigation concerning the medical necessity of patient transportation, which was the basis for the subpoenas. The relator alleged that an ambulance company submitted false claims for patient transportation. Although the Company does not provide transportation nor does it bill for the transport of its dialysis patients, the relator alleged that two of its purported clinical staff caused the submission of a small number of those claims through improper certifications of medical necessity. The DOJ has declined to intervene. In April 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2015 U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) Medicare Advantage Civil Investigation: In March 2015, JSA HealthCare Corporation (JSA), a subsidiary of DMG, received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Company has been advised by an attorney with the Civil Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. that the subpoena relates to an ongoing civil investigation concerning MA service providers’ risk adjustment practices and data, including identification and verification of patient diagnoses and factors used in making the diagnoses. The subpoena requests documents and information for the period from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2013, for certain MA plans for which JSA provided services. It also requests information regarding JSA’s communications about patient diagnoses as they relate to certain MA plans generally, and more specifically as related to two Florida physicians with whom JSA previously contracted. The Company is producing the requested information and is cooperating with the government’s investigation. In addition to the subpoena described above, in June 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG. This civil subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2008 through the present and seeks production of a wide range of documents relating to the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ (including DMG’s and its subsidiary JSA’s) provision of services to MA plans and related patient diagnosis coding and risk adjustment submissions and payments. The Company believes that the request is part of a broader industry investigation into MA patient diagnosis coding and risk adjustment practices and potential overpayments by the government. The information requested includes information relating to patient diagnosis coding practices for a number of conditions, including potentially improper historical DMG coding for a particular condition. With respect to that condition, the guidance related to that coding issue was discontinued following the Company’s November 1, 2012 acquisition of DMG, and the Company notified CMS in April 2015 of the coding practice and potential overpayments. In that regard, the Company has identified certain additional coding practices which may have been problematic and is in discussions with the DOJ about the scope and nature of a review of claims relating to those practices. The Company is cooperating with the government and is producing the requested information. In addition, the Company is continuing to review other DMG coding practices to determine whether there were any improper coding issues. In connection with the DMG merger, the Company has certain indemnification rights against the sellers and an escrow was established as security for the indemnification. The Company has submitted an indemnification claim against the sellers secured by the escrow for any and all liabilities incurred relating to these matters and intends to pursue recovery from the escrow. However, the Company can make no assurances that the indemnification and escrow will cover the full amount of the Company’s potential losses related to these matters. 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Vascular Access Investigation and Related Qui Tam Litigation: In November 2015, the Company announced that RMS Lifeline, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company that operates under the name Lifeline Vascular Access (Lifeline), received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the DOJ. The CID relates to two vascular access centers in Florida that are part of Lifeline’s vascular access business. The CID covers the period from January 1, 2008 through the present. The Company acquired these two centers in December 2012. Based on the language of the CID, the DOJ appeared to be looking at whether angiograms performed at the two centers were medically unnecessary and therefore whether related claims filed with federal healthcare programs possibly violated the FCA. Lifeline does not perform dialysis services but instead provides vascular access management services for dialysis patients. The Company cooperated with the government and produced the requested information. The DOJ investigation was initiated pursuant to a complaint brought under the qui tam provisions of the FCA (the Complaint). The Complaint was originally filed under seal in August 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, United States ex. rel James Spafford v. DaVita HealthCare Partners, Inc., et al., Case Number 6:14-cv-1251-Orl-41DAB, naming several doctors along with the Company as defendants. In December 2015, a First Amended Complaint was filed under seal. In May 2016, the First Amended Complaint was unsealed. The First Amended Complaint alleges violations of the FCA due to the submission of claims to the government for allegedly medically unnecessary angiograms and angiography procedures at the two vascular access centers as well as employment-related claims. The Complaint covers alleged conduct dating from July 2008, prior to the Company’s acquisition of the centers, to the present. The DOJ declined to intervene. In January 2017, the Company finalized and executed a settlement agreement with the relator and the government for an immaterial amount, and in April 2017, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. 2016 U.S. Attorney Prescription Drug Investigation: In early February 2016, the Company announced that its pharmacy services’ wholly-owned subsidiary, DaVita Rx, received a CID from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas. It appears the government is conducting an FCA investigation concerning allegations that DaVita Rx presented or caused to be presented false claims for payment to the government for prescription medications, as well as into the Company’s relationship with pharmaceutical manufacturers. The CID covers the period from January 1, 2006 through the present. In the spring of 2015, the Company initiated an internal compliance review of DaVita Rx during which it identified potential billing and operational issues, including potential write-offs and discounts of patient co-payment obligations, and credits to payors for returns of prescription drugs related to DaVita Rx. The Company notified the government in September 2015 that it was conducting this review of DaVita Rx and began providing regular updates of its review. Upon completion of its review, the Company filed a self-disclosure with the OIG in early February 2016 and has been working to address and update the practices it identified in the self-disclosure, some of which overlap with information requested by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The Company does not know if the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which is part of the DOJ, knew when it served the CID on the Company that it was already in the process of developing a self-disclosure to the OIG. The OIG informed the Company in February 2016 that its submission was not accepted. They indicated that the OIG is not expressing an opinion regarding the conduct disclosed or the Company’s legal positions. The Company is cooperating with the government and is producing the requested information. Solari Post-Acquisition Matter: In 2016, HCP Nevada disclosed to the OIG for the HHS that proper procedures for clinical and eligibility determinations may not have been followed by Las Vegas Solari Hospice (Solari), which was acquired in March 2013 and sold in September 2016 by HCP Nevada. In June 2016, the Company was notified by the OIG that the disclosure submission had been accepted into the OIG’s Self Disclosure Protocol. HCP Nevada had previously made a disclosure and repayment of overpayments to National Government Services (NGS), the Medicare Administrative Contractor for HCP Nevada, for claims submitted by Solari to the federal government prior to DMG’s acquisition of Solari and claims made to the government post-acquisition for which the sellers had certain responsibilities pursuant to a management services agreement. The Company is cooperating with the government in this matter. 2017 U.S. Attorney American Kidney Fund Investigation: On January 4, 2017, the Company was served with an administrative subpoena for records by the United States Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts, relating to an investigation into possible federal health care offenses. The subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2007 through the present, and seeks documents relevant to charitable patient assistance organizations, particularly the American Kidney Fund, including documents related to efforts to provide patients with information concerning the availability of charitable assistance. The Company is cooperating with the government and is producing the requested information. Although the Company cannot predict whether or when proceedings might be initiated or when these matters may be resolved (other than as described above), it is not unusual for inquiries such as these to continue for a considerable period of time through the various phases of document and witness requests and on-going discussions with regulators. In addition to the inquiries and proceedings specifically identified above, the Company is frequently subject to other inquiries by state or federal government agencies and/or private civil qui tam complaints filed by relators. Negative findings or terms and conditions that the Company might agree to accept as part of a negotiated resolution of pending or future government inquiries or relator proceedings could result in, among other things, substantial financial penalties or awards against the Company, substantial payments made by the Company, harm to the Company’s reputation, required changes to the Company’s business practices, exclusion from future participation in the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs and, if criminal proceedings were initiated against the Company, possible criminal penalties, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company. Shareholder Claims Peace Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia Securities Class Action Civil Suit: On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and certain executives. The complaint covers the time period of August 2015 to October 2016 and alleges, generally, that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws concerning the Company’s financial results and revenue derived from patients who received charitable premium assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization. The complaint further alleges that the process by which patients obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium assistance was improper and “created a false impression of DaVita’s business and operational status and future growth prospects.” The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this action accordingly. Blackburn Shareholder Derivative Civil Suit: On February 10, 2017, Charles Blackburn filed a derivative shareholder lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company, as nominal defendant, the Board of Directors and certain executives. The complaint covers the time period from 2015 to present and alleges, generally, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose certain information in violation of the federal securities laws in the Company’s 2016 proxy statement in connection with an alleged practice to direct patients with government-subsidized health insurance into private health insurance plans to maximize the Company’s profits. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this action accordingly. On April 4, 2017, the court stayed this proceeding until the resolution of the Peace Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia Securities Class Action Civil Suit, whether by dismissal with prejudice or entry of final judgment. Resolved Matters Vainer Private Civil Suit: As previously disclosed, the Company received a subpoena for documents from the OIG relating to the pharmaceutical products Zemplar, Hectorol, Venofer, Ferrlecit and erythropoietin (EPO), as well as other related matters, covering the period from January 2003 to December 2008. The Company subsequently learned that the allegations underlying this inquiry were made as part of a civil complaint filed by relators, Daniel Barbir and Dr. Alon Vainer, pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the federal FCA. The relators also alleged that the Company’s drug administration practices for the Company’s dialysis operations for Vitamin D and iron agents from 2003 through 2010 fraudulently created unnecessary waste, which was billed to and paid for by the government. In June 2015, the Company finalized the terms of the settlement with plaintiffs, including a settlement amount of $450,000 and attorney fees and other costs of $45,000 which was paid in 2015. 2011 U.S. Attorney Medicaid Investigation: In October 2011, the Company announced that it would be receiving a request for documents, which could include an administrative subpoena from the OIG. Subsequent to the Company’s announcement of this 2011 U.S. Attorney Medicaid Investigation, the Company received a request for documents in connection with the inquiry by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. The request related to payments for infusion drugs covered by Medicaid composite payments for dialysis. The Company cooperated with the government and produced the requested documents. In April 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the government. In March 2016, the Company finalized and executed settlement agreements with the State of New York and the DOJ, including a settlement payment of an immaterial amount. Other Proceedings In addition to the foregoing, from time to time the Company is subject to other lawsuits, claims, governmental investigations and audits and legal proceedings that arise due to the nature of its business, including contractual disputes, such as with payors, suppliers and others, employee-related matters and professional and general liability claims. From time to time, the Company initiates litigation or other legal proceedings as a plaintiff arising out of contracts or other matters. In that regard, the Company had a pending lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the federal government which was originally filed in May 2011. The lawsuit related to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) underpayment of dialysis services the Company provided from 2005 through 2011 to veterans pursuant to VA regulations. In the first quarter of 2017, we received a payment of $538,000 related to the settlement with the VA. Our consolidated entities recognized a net gain of $527,000 on this settlement. Our nonconsolidated and managed entities recognized a gain of $9,000, of which our equity investment share was $3,000. The net effect was a net increase of $530,000 to the Company's operating income. * * * Other than as described above, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcomes of the various legal proceedings and regulatory matters to which the Company is or may be subject from time to time, including those described in this Note 10, or the timing of their resolution or the ultimate losses or impact of developments in those matters, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s revenues, earnings and cash flows. Further, any legal proceedings or regulatory matters involving the Company, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming, and often require management’s attention and result in significant legal expense, and may result in the diversion of significant operational resources, or otherwise harm the Company’s business, financial results or reputation.

Contingencies

The majority of the Company’s revenues are from government programs and may be subject to adjustment as a result of: (i) examination by government agencies or contractors, for which the resolution of any matters raised may take extended periods of time to finalize; (ii) differing interpretations of government regulations by different Medicare contractors or regulatory authorities; (iii) differing opinions regarding a patient’s medical diagnosis or the medical necessity of services provided; and (iv) retroactive applications or interpretations of governmental requirements. In addition, the Company’s revenues from commercial payors may be subject to adjustment as a result of potential claims for refunds, as a result of government actions or as a result of other claims by commercial payors.

The Company operates in a highly regulated industry and is a party to various lawsuits, claims, governmental investigations and audits (including investigations resulting from its obligation to self-report suspected violations of law) and other legal proceedings. The Company records accruals for certain legal proceedings and regulatory matters to the extent that the Company determines an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, the Company’s total recorded accruals with respect to legal proceedings and regulatory matters, net of anticipated third party recoveries, were approximately $69,300 for both periods. While these accruals reflect the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss for those matters as of the dates of those accruals, the recorded amounts may differ materially from the actual amount of the losses for those matters, and any anticipated third party recoveries for any such losses may not ultimately be recoverable. Additionally, in some cases, no estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made because of the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings and regulatory matters, which may be exacerbated by various factors, including that they may involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages or may involve fines, penalties or non-monetary remedies; present novel legal theories or legal uncertainties; involve disputed facts; represent a shift in regulatory policy; are in the early stages of the proceedings; or result in a change of business practices. Further, there may be various levels of judicial review available to the Company in connection with any such proceeding.

The following is a description of certain lawsuits, claims, governmental investigations and audits and other legal proceedings to which the Company is subject.

Inquiries by the Federal Government and Certain Related Civil Proceedings

Swoben Private Civil Suit: In April 2013, HealthCare Partners (HCP), now known as the Company’s DMG subsidiary, was one of several defendants served with a civil complaint filed by a former employee of SCAN Health Plan (SCAN), an HMO. On July 13, 2009, pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act (FCA) and the California False Claims Act, James M. Swoben, as relator, filed his initial qui tam action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purportedly on behalf of the United States of America and the State of California against SCAN, and certain other defendants whose identities were under seal. The allegations in the complaint relate to alleged overpayments received from government healthcare programs. In 2009 and 2010, the relator twice amended his complaint and added additional defendants, and in November 2011, he filed his Third Amended Complaint under seal alleging violations of the federal FCA and the California False Claims Act, and added additional defendants, including HCP and certain health insurance companies (the defendant HMOs). The allegations in the complaint against HCP relate to patient diagnosis coding to determine reimbursement in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, referred to as HCC and RAF scores. The complaint sought monetary damages and civil penalties as well as costs and expenses. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reviewed these allegations and in January 2013 declined to intervene in the case. HCP and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, and the court dismissed with prejudice the claims and judgment was entered in September 2013. Upon the plaintiff’s appeal, a panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned the trial court’s ruling and vacated the dismissal of the case. The Company, with certain defendants, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, but in December 2016, the Ninth Circuit rejected the petition and determined the relator should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint, and remanded the case back to district court. In March 2017, the relator filed his Fourth Amended Complaint alleging that HCP and certain health insurance companies employed one-way retrospective reviews that were designed only to identify additional diagnoses that would be submitted to CMS for risk adjustment purposes, and thereby drive higher risk scores that would increase the capitated payments made by the federal government under the MA program. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to defend accordingly.

2015 U.S. Attorney Transportation Investigation: In February 2015, the Company announced that it received six administrative subpoenas from the OIG for medical records from six different dialysis centers in southern California operated by the Company. Specifically, each subpoena sought the medical records of a single patient of each respective dialysis center. In February 2016, the Company received four additional subpoenas for four additional dialysis centers in southern California. The subpoenas were similarly limited in scope to the subpoenas received in 2015. On February 8, 2017, the Company was served with a qui tam complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Company has been advised by an attorney with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California that the qui tam is related to the investigation concerning the medical necessity of patient transportation, which was the basis for the subpoenas. The relator alleged that an ambulance company submitted false claims for patient transportation. Although the Company does not provide transportation nor does it bill for the transport of its dialysis patients, the relator alleged that two of its purported clinical staff caused the submission of a small number of those claims through improper certifications of medical necessity. The DOJ has declined to intervene. In April 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2015 U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) Medicare Advantage Civil Investigation: In March 2015, JSA HealthCare Corporation (JSA), a subsidiary of DMG, received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Company has been advised by an attorney with the Civil Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. that the subpoena relates to an ongoing civil investigation concerning MA service providers’ risk adjustment practices and data, including identification and verification of patient diagnoses and factors used in making the diagnoses. The subpoena requests documents and information for the period from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2013, for certain MA plans for which JSA provided services. It also requests information regarding JSA’s communications about patient diagnoses as they relate to certain MA plans generally, and more specifically as related to two Florida physicians with whom JSA previously contracted. The Company is producing the requested information and is cooperating with the government’s investigation.

In addition to the subpoena described above, in June 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG. This civil subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2008 through the present and seeks production of a wide range of documents relating to the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ (including DMG’s and its subsidiary JSA’s) provision of services to MA plans and related patient diagnosis coding and risk adjustment submissions and payments. The Company believes that the request is part of a broader industry investigation into MA patient diagnosis coding and risk adjustment practices and potential overpayments by the government. The information requested includes information relating to patient diagnosis coding practices for a number of conditions, including potentially improper historical DMG coding for a particular condition. With respect to that condition, the guidance related to that coding issue was discontinued following the Company’s November 1, 2012 acquisition of DMG, and the Company notified CMS in April 2015 of the coding practice and potential overpayments. In that regard, the Company has identified certain additional coding practices which may have been problematic and is in discussions with the DOJ about the scope and nature of a review of claims relating to those practices. The Company is cooperating with the government and is producing the requested information. In addition, the Company is continuing to review other DMG coding practices to determine whether there were any improper coding issues. In connection with the DMG merger, the Company has certain indemnification rights against the sellers and an escrow was established as security for the indemnification. The Company has submitted an indemnification claim against the sellers secured by the escrow for any and all liabilities incurred relating to these matters and intends to pursue recovery from the escrow. However, the Company can make no assurances that the indemnification and escrow will cover the full amount of the Company’s potential losses related to these matters.

2015 U.S. Department of Justice Vascular Access Investigation and Related Qui Tam Litigation: In November 2015, the Company announced that RMS Lifeline, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company that operates under the name Lifeline Vascular Access (Lifeline), received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the DOJ. The CID relates to two vascular access centers in Florida that are part of Lifeline’s vascular access business. The CID covers the period from January 1, 2008 through the present. The Company acquired these two centers in December 2012. Based on the language of the CID, the DOJ appeared to be looking at whether angiograms performed at the two centers were medically unnecessary and therefore whether related claims filed with federal healthcare programs possibly violated the FCA. Lifeline does not perform dialysis services but instead provides vascular access management services for dialysis patients. The Company cooperated with the government and produced the requested information. The DOJ investigation was initiated pursuant to a complaint brought under the qui tam provisions of the FCA (the Complaint). The Complaint was originally filed under seal in August 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, United States ex. rel James Spafford v. DaVita HealthCare Partners, Inc., et al., Case Number 6:14-cv-1251-Orl-41DAB, naming several doctors along with the Company as defendants. In December 2015, a First Amended Complaint was filed under seal. In May 2016, the First Amended Complaint was unsealed. The First Amended Complaint alleges violations of the FCA due to the submission of claims to the government for allegedly medically unnecessary angiograms and angiography procedures at the two vascular access centers as well as employment-related claims. The Complaint covers alleged conduct dating from July 2008, prior to the Company’s acquisition of the centers, to the present. The DOJ declined to intervene. In January 2017, the Company finalized and executed a settlement agreement with the relator and the government for an immaterial amount, and in April 2017, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

2016 U.S. Attorney Prescription Drug Investigation: In early February 2016, the Company announced that its pharmacy services’ wholly-owned subsidiary, DaVita Rx, received a CID from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas. It appears the government is conducting an FCA investigation concerning allegations that DaVita Rx presented or caused to be presented false claims for payment to the government for prescription medications, as well as into the Company’s relationship with pharmaceutical manufacturers. The CID covers the period from January 1, 2006 through the present. In the spring of 2015, the Company initiated an internal compliance review of DaVita Rx during which it identified potential billing and operational issues, including potential write-offs and discounts of patient co-payment obligations, and credits to payors for returns of prescription drugs related to DaVita Rx. The Company notified the government in September 2015 that it was conducting this review of DaVita Rx and began providing regular updates of its review. Upon completion of its review, the Company filed a self-disclosure with the OIG in early February 2016 and has been working to address and update the practices it identified in the self-disclosure, some of which overlap with information requested by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The Company does not know if the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which is part of the DOJ, knew when it served the CID on the Company that it was already in the process of developing a self-disclosure to the OIG. The OIG informed the Company in February 2016 that its submission was not accepted. They indicated that the OIG is not expressing an opinion regarding the conduct disclosed or the Company’s legal positions. The Company is cooperating with the government and is producing the requested information.

Solari Post-Acquisition Matter: In 2016, HCP Nevada disclosed to the OIG for the HHS that proper procedures for clinical and eligibility determinations may not have been followed by Las Vegas Solari Hospice (Solari), which was acquired in March 2013 and sold in September 2016 by HCP Nevada. In June 2016, the Company was notified by the OIG that the disclosure submission had been accepted into the OIG’s Self Disclosure Protocol. HCP Nevada had previously made a disclosure and repayment of overpayments to National Government Services (NGS), the Medicare Administrative Contractor for HCP Nevada, for claims submitted by Solari to the federal government prior to DMG’s acquisition of Solari and claims made to the government post-acquisition for which the sellers had certain responsibilities pursuant to a management services agreement. The Company is cooperating with the government in this matter.

2017 U.S. Attorney American Kidney Fund Investigation: On January 4, 2017, the Company was served with an administrative subpoena for records by the United States Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts, relating to an investigation into possible federal health care offenses. The subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2007 through the present, and seeks documents relevant to charitable patient assistance organizations, particularly the American Kidney Fund, including documents related to efforts to provide patients with information concerning the availability of charitable assistance. The Company is cooperating with the government and is producing the requested information.

Although the Company cannot predict whether or when proceedings might be initiated or when these matters may be resolved (other than as described above), it is not unusual for inquiries such as these to continue for a considerable period of time through the various phases of document and witness requests and on-going discussions with regulators. In addition to the inquiries and proceedings specifically identified above, the Company is frequently subject to other inquiries by state or federal government agencies and/or private civil qui tam complaints filed by relators. Negative findings or terms and conditions that the Company might agree to accept as part of a negotiated resolution of pending or future government inquiries or relator proceedings could result in, among other things, substantial financial penalties or awards against the Company, substantial payments made by the Company, harm to the Company’s reputation, required changes to the Company’s business practices, exclusion from future participation in the Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs and, if criminal proceedings were initiated against the Company, possible criminal penalties, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Shareholder Claims

Peace Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia Securities Class Action Civil Suit: On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and certain executives. The complaint covers the time period of August 2015 to October 2016 and alleges, generally, that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws concerning the Company’s financial results and revenue derived from patients who received charitable premium assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization. The complaint further alleges that the process by which patients obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium assistance was improper and “created a false impression of DaVita’s business and operational status and future growth prospects.” The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this action accordingly.

Blackburn Shareholder Derivative Civil Suit: On February 10, 2017, Charles Blackburn filed a derivative shareholder lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company, as nominal defendant, the Board of Directors and certain executives. The complaint covers the time period from 2015 to present and alleges, generally, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose certain information in violation of the federal securities laws in the Company’s 2016 proxy statement in connection with an alleged practice to direct patients with government-subsidized health insurance into private health insurance plans to maximize the Company’s profits. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this action accordingly. On April 4, 2017, the court stayed this proceeding until the resolution of the Peace Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia Securities Class Action Civil Suit, whether by dismissal with prejudice or entry of final judgment.

Resolved Matters

Vainer Private Civil Suit: As previously disclosed, the Company received a subpoena for documents from the OIG relating to the pharmaceutical products Zemplar, Hectorol, Venofer, Ferrlecit and erythropoietin (EPO), as well as other related matters, covering the period from January 2003 to December 2008. The Company subsequently learned that the allegations underlying this inquiry were made as part of a civil complaint filed by relators, Daniel Barbir and Dr. Alon Vainer, pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the federal FCA. The relators also alleged that the Company’s drug administration practices for the Company’s dialysis operations for Vitamin D and iron agents from 2003 through 2010 fraudulently created unnecessary waste, which was billed to and paid for by the government. In June 2015, the Company finalized the terms of the settlement with plaintiffs, including a settlement amount of $450,000 and attorney fees and other costs of $45,000 which was paid in 2015.

2011 U.S. Attorney Medicaid Investigation: In October 2011, the Company announced that it would be receiving a request for documents, which could include an administrative subpoena from the OIG. Subsequent to the Company’s announcement of this 2011 U.S. Attorney Medicaid Investigation, the Company received a request for documents in connection with the inquiry by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. The request related to payments for infusion drugs covered by Medicaid composite payments for dialysis. The Company cooperated with the government and produced the requested documents. In April 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the government. In March 2016, the Company finalized and executed settlement agreements with the State of New York and the DOJ, including a settlement payment of an immaterial amount.

Other Proceedings

In addition to the foregoing, from time to time the Company is subject to other lawsuits, claims, governmental investigations and audits and legal proceedings that arise due to the nature of its business, including contractual disputes, such as with payors, suppliers and others, employee-related matters and professional and general liability claims.

From time to time, the Company initiates litigation or other legal proceedings as a plaintiff arising out of contracts or other matters. In that regard, the Company had a pending lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the federal government which was originally filed in May 2011. The lawsuit related to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) underpayment of dialysis services the Company provided from 2005 through 2011 to veterans pursuant to VA regulations. In the first quarter of 2017, we received a payment of $538,000 related to the settlement with the VA. Our consolidated entities recognized a net gain of $527,000 on this settlement. Our nonconsolidated and managed entities recognized a gain of $9,000, of which our equity investment share was $3,000. The net effect was a net increase of $530,000 to the Company's operating income.

* * *

Other than as described above, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcomes of the various legal proceedings and regulatory matters to which the Company is or may be subject from time to time, including those described in this Note 10, or the timing of their resolution or the ultimate losses or impact of developments in those matters, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s revenues, earnings and cash flows. Further, any legal proceedings or regulatory matters involving the Company, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming, and often require management’s attention and result in significant legal expense, and may result in the diversion of significant operational resources, or otherwise harm the Company’s business, financial results or reputation.