LabCorp 2015 Annual Report Download - page 43

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 43 of the 2015 LabCorp annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 151

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151

Index
for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.
The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., and
Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et. al., related to overtime pay. After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the
Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit and removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the
consolidated lawsuit, the Plaintiffs alleged on behalf of similarly situated phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to
provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. On May 28, 2015, the District Court issued a preliminary
approval of the class action settlement and notice of the settlement terms has been sent to putative class members.
The Company is also a defendant in two additional putative class action lawsuits alleging similar claims to the Bohlander/Andres consolidated lawsuit.
The lawsuit of Rachel Rabanes v. California Laboratory Sciences, LLC, et al., was filed in April 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Los Angeles, and the lawsuit Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA LabCorp, was filed in June 2014 in the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Diego. As a result of the Andres settlement, the Plaintiff in the Rabanes case dismissed her case in June 2015. The Varsam case was settled
in November 2015.
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 million, 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 million,
with non-economic damages reduced by 25% to account for the Plaintiff's negligence, for a final verdict of $15.8 million. 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 million,
reduced by 25.0% for the Plaintiff’s negligence. Accordingly, the total judgment is $4.4 million. 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 24, 2014, LipoScience and the Company entered into a Merger Agreement pursuant to which the Company through its subsidiary, Bear
Acquisition Corp, 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 closing of the Merger on November 20, 2014, purported stockholders of LipoScience filed four putative class action
lawsuits against LipoScience, members of the
43