|ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORP filed this Form 10-Q on 08/08/2017|
(13) Income Taxes
The Company files a consolidated federal income tax return. Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date.
The Company applies recognition thresholds and measurement attributes for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return as it relates to accounting for uncertainty in income taxes. In addition, it is the Company’s policy to recognize interest accrued and penalties, if any, related to unrecognized benefits as income tax expense in its consolidated statements of operations. The Company does not expect significant changes to its tax positions or liability for tax uncertainties during the next 12 months.
The Company and its subsidiaries file U.S. federal and various state tax returns. With few exceptions, the Company is no longer subject to U.S. federal or state income tax examinations for years prior to 2012.
(14) Commitments and Contingencies
The Company is subject to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including litigation principally relating to professional and general liability. There can be no assurance that the Company's insurance coverage and self-insured liabilities will be adequate to cover all liabilities occurring out of such claims. In addition, the Company receives requests for information from government agencies in connection with their regulatory or investigational authority. Such requests can include subpoenas or demand letters for documents to assist the government in audits or investigations. The Company reviews such requests and notices and takes appropriate action. The Company has been subject to certain requests for information and investigations in the past and could be subject to such requests for information and investigations in the future.
Other than the proceedings described below, the Company believes that it is not engaged in any legal proceedings that would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.
On August 7, 2012, EmCare received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) requesting documents focused on EmCare’s contracts for services at hospitals affiliated with Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA). The Company is a named defendant in two lawsuits filed by whistleblowers alleging misconduct by HMA and certain other parties (the HMA Lawsuits). The federal government has not intervened in these matters as they relate to allegations against EmCare. The Company continues to engage in dialogue with the government to resolve this matter. As the Company has made significant progress towards resolution with the government, the Company has recorded a reserve of $31.2 million based on estimates of probable exposure.
Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against certain subsidiaries of the Company's medical transportation business in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, including failures to pay overtime wages and to provide required meal and rest breaks to employees. On April 16, 2008, L. Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (L.A. Superior Court), on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in the L.A. Superior Court, and on March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed suit in L.A. Superior Court. The Aguilar and Karapetian cases were consolidated into a single action. In the Bartoni case, the court denied class certification of the meal break claim, but the appellate court reversed and remanded the ruling on rest breaks for further proceedings. The plaintiffs in Bartoni have asserted representative claims on behalf of similarly situated employees under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). In each of the Banta and Karapetian/Aguilar cases, while all classes have been decertified, the plaintiffs have also asserted representative claims under PAGA. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of potential damages, if any.
In 2012, the Company's Rural/Metro subsidiary entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the OIG in connection with a qui tam action alleging that Rural/Metro had falsified Medicare documents and improperly billed for ambulance services. The CIA requires the Company to maintain a compliance program. This program includes, among other elements, the appointment of a compliance officer and committee, training of employees nationwide, safeguards for ambulance billing operations, review by an