LabCorp 2015 Annual Report Download - page 115

Index



On December 17, 2010, the Company was served with a lawsuit, Oliver Wuth, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al. , filed in the State
Superior Court of King County, Washington. The lawsuit alleges that the Company was negligent in the handling of a prenatal genetic test order that
allegedly resulted in the parents being given incorrect information. The matter was tried before a jury beginning on October 21, 2013. On December 10,
2013, the jury returned a verdict in in plaintiffs’ favor in the amount of $50.0, with 50.0% of liability apportioned to the Company and 50.0% of liability
apportioned to co-defendant Valley Medical Center. The Company filed post-judgment motions for a new trial, which were denied, and then appealed to the
Court of Appeals of the State of Washington. The Appeals Court heard oral argument in June 2015. In August 2015, the Appeals Court affirmed the trial
court's judgment. In September 2015, the Company filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. On March 1, 2016, the
Supreme Court will decide whether it will review the merits of the case. The Company carries self-insurance reserves and excess liability insurance sufficient
to cover the potential liability in this case.
On July 3, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit, John Wisekal, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Darien Wisekal v . Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings and Glenda C. Mixon, filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company misread a Pap test. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The
matter was tried before a jury beginning on April 1, 2014. On April 17, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $20.8, with non-
economic damages reduced by 25.0% to account for the Plaintiff's negligence, for a final verdict of $15.8. The Company filed post-trial motions. On July 28,
2014, the Court granted the Company’s motion for remittitur and reduced the jury’s non-economic damages award to $5.0, reduced by 25.0% for the
Plaintiff’s negligence. Accordingly, the total judgment is $4.4. The Plaintiff opposed the remittitur and the Court ordered a new trial on the issue of damages
only. The trial was scheduled for January 2016, but did not go forward at that time. Pending the outcome of pre-trial motions, the trial date may be reset. The
Company will vigorously defend this lawsuit.
On July 9, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America , filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act by allegedly providing credit card expiration date information on an electronically printed credit card receipt. The lawsuit sought damages
of not less than $0.0001 but not more than $0.01 per violation, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. On November 4, 2015, the
District Court issued preliminary approval of the class action settlement and notice of the settlement was sent to putative class members. On February 18,
2016, the District Court entered a final order approving the settlement.
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. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
On September 4, 2014, LipoScience, Inc. (LipoScience) and the Company entered into a Merger Agreement pursuant to which the Company through its
subsidiary, Bear Acquisition Corp (Merger Sub), would acquire all of the outstanding shares of LipoScience at a purchase price of $5.25 per share in cash for
each outstanding share of LipoScience (Merger). Prior to the consummation of the Merger on November 20, 2014, purported stockholders of LipoScience
filed four putative class action lawsuits against LipoScience, members of the LipoScience board of directors, the Company and Bear Acquisition Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, in the Delaware Court of Chancery and, with respect to one of the lawsuits, in the Superior Court of Wake County,
North Carolina. The lawsuits alleged breach of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state law arising out of the Merger. Each suit sought, among other
things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On October 23, 2014, the case in North Carolina was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff.
On October 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the remaining three actions under the caption In re LipoScience, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10252-VCP. After limited discovery, the parties agreed on certain additional disclosures to the Company's definitive proxy
statement filed on October 20, 2014, which were made in a supplement to the definitive proxy statement filed on November 10, 2014 (LipoScience
Supplemental Disclosures). On November 30, 2015, the Court approved a stipulation under which Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action without
prejudice as to all Plaintiffs and any other putative class member. The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating Plaintiffs' counsel's
anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the LipoScience Supplemental Disclosures. The
Company subsequently agreed to pay $0.2 to Plaintiffs' counsel for attorney’s fees and expenses in full satisfaction of their claim for attorney’s fees and
expenses in the action. The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of the attorney’s fees and expenses or their
reasonableness. Contact information for counsel is Brian D. Long ([e-mail]) for Plaintiffs and Raymond J. DiCamillo ([e-mail]) for the
Company.
F-35