Item 3. Legal Proceedings

| --- | --- |

We are subject to claims and suits in the ordinary course of business, including those arising from care and treatment afforded by our hospitals and are party to litigation, as outlined below.

Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital:

In April, 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued notice of its decision terminating Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital (“Two Rivers”) in Kansas City, Missouri from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid program. The termination notice was issued as a result of surveys conducted which allegedly found Two Rivers to be out of compliance with the conditions of participation required for participation in the Medicare program and for Two Rivers’ alleged failure to alleviate an “immediate jeopardy” situation. Two Rivers filed an administrative appeal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental

Table of Contents

Appeal Board, Civil Remedies Division, seeking review and reversal of that decision. In addition, Two Rivers filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against CMS rescinding the termination action. Later in April, 2011, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order abating the termination action pending a preliminary injunction hearing or an agreement with CMS. In May, 2011, Two Rivers and CMS entered into a settlement agreement which resulted in the rescission of the termination notice and actions by CMS. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Two Rivers was required to submit an acceptable plan of correction relative to the immediate jeopardy citation and engage independent experts in various disciplines to analyze and develop implementation plans for Two Rivers to meet the applicable Medicare conditions of participation. Both of these actions have occurred. Pursuant to the agreement, CMS conducted an initial survey of Two Rivers in April 2012 to determine if the Medicare conditions of participation, which formed the basis of the termination action in April 2011, had been met. In late April, 2012, CMS advised Two Rivers that it has successfully passed this initial survey. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, a second survey will be conducted in early 2013 to further confirm that Two Rivers is in compliance with all Medicare/Medicaid Conditions of Participation. During the term of this agreement, Two Rivers remains eligible to receive reimbursements for services rendered to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Two Rivers remains fully committed to providing high-quality healthcare to their patients and the community it serves. We therefore intend to work expeditiously and collaboratively with CMS in an effort to resolve these matters. We can provide no assurance that Two Rivers will not ultimately lose its Medicare certification. The operating results of Two Rivers did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition for the years ended December 31, 2012 or 2011.

Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) and Other Government Investigations

In September, 2010, we, along with many other companies in the healthcare industry, received a letter from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) advising of a False Claim Act investigation being conducted in connection with the implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (“ICDs”) from 2003 to the present at several of our acute care facilities. The DOJ alleges that ICDs were implanted and billed by our facilities in contravention of a National Claims Determination regarding these devices. We have established a reserve in connection with this matter which did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In July, 2012, one of our subsidiaries, Peachford Behavioral Health System of Atlanta located in Atlanta, Georgia, received a subpoena from the OIG for the Department of Health and Human Services requesting various documents from 2004 to the present. We are in the process of securing and collecting the requested documents for production. At present, we are uncertain as to the focus, scope or extent of the investigation, liability of the facility and/or potential financial exposure, if any, in connection with this matter.

In February, 2013, the OIG served a subpoena requesting various documents from January 2008 to the present directed at Universal Health Services, Inc. (“UHS”) concerning it and UHS of Delaware, Inc., and several UHS owned facilities including: Keys of Carolina, Old Vineyard Behavioral Health, The Meadows Psychiatric Center, Streamwood Behavioral Health, Hartgrove Hospital, Rock River Academy and Residential Treatment Center, Roxbury Treatment Center, Harbor Point Behavioral Health Center, f/k/a, The Pines Residential Treatment Center, including the Crawford, Brighton and Kempsville campuses, Wekiva Springs Center and River Point Behavioral Health. Prior to receiving this subpoena: (i) the Keys of Carolina and Old Vineyard received notification during the second half of 2012 from the United States Department of Justice of its intent to proceed with an investigation following requests for documents from January, 2007 to the present from the North Carolina state Attorney General’s Office; (ii) Harbor Point Behavioral Health Center received a subpoena in December, 2012 from the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia requesting various documents from July 2006 to the present, and; (iii) The Meadows Psychiatric Center received a subpoena from the OIG in February, 2013 requesting certain documents from 2008 to the present. At present, we are uncertain as to the focus, scope or extent of the investigations, liability of the facilities and/or potential financial exposure, if any, in connection with these matters. Unrelated to these matters, the Keys of Carolina was closed and the real property was sold in January, 2013.

Table of Contents

Matters Relating to PSI:

The following matters pertain to PSI or former PSI facilities (owned by subsidiaries of Psychiatric Solutions, Inc.) which were in existence prior to the acquisition of PSI and for which we have assumed the defense as a result of our acquisition which was completed in November, 2010:

Garden City Employees’ Retirement System v. PSI:

This is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against PSI and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations of federal securities laws. We intend to defend the case vigorously. Should we be deemed liable in this matter, we believe we would be entitled to commercial insurance recoveries for amounts paid by us, subject to certain limitations and deductibles. Included in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, is an estimated reserve (current liability) and corresponding commercial insurance recovery (current asset) which did not have a material impact on our financial statements. Although we believe the commercial insurance recoveries are adequate to satisfy potential liability and related legal fees in connection with this matter, we can provide no assurance that the ultimate liability will not exceed the commercial insurance recoveries which would make us liable for the excess.

Department of Justice Investigation of Friends Hospital:

In October, 2010, Friends Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting certain documents from the facility. The requested documents have been collected and provided to the DOJ for review and examination. Another subpoena was issued to the facility in July 2011 requesting additional documents, which have been collected and delivered to the DOJ. At present, we are uncertain as to the focus, scope or extent of the investigation, liability of the facility and/or potential financial exposure, if any, in connection with this matter.

Department of Justice Investigation of Riveredge Hospital:

In 2008, Riveredge Hospital in Chicago, Illinois received a subpoena from the DOJ requesting certain information from the facility. Additional requests for documents were also received from the DOJ in 2009 and 2010. The requested documents have been provided to the DOJ. At present, we are uncertain as to the focus, scope or extent of the investigation, liability of the facility and/or potential financial exposure, if any, in connection with this matter.

Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services Recoupment Claims:

The Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services (“DMAS”) has conducted audits at seven former PSI Residential Treatment Centers operated in the Commonwealth of Virginia to confirm compliance with provider rules under the state’s Medicaid Provider Services Manual (“Manual”). As a result of those audits, DMAS claims the facilities failed to comply with the requirements of the Manual and has requested repayment of Medicaid payments to those facilities. PSI had previously filed appeals to repayment demands at each facility which are currently pending. We have recently reached a preliminary settlement of this matter which requires finalization of a definitive agreement and approval of Virginia state officials. The aggregate refund of Medicaid payments made to those facilities, as requested by DMAS, and the settlement amount is not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

General:

The healthcare industry is subject to numerous laws and regulations which include, among other things, matters such as government healthcare participation requirements, various licensure, certifications, and accreditations, reimbursement for patient services, and Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse. Government action has increased with respect to investigations and/or allegations concerning possible violations of fraud and

Table of Contents

abuse and false claims statutes and/or regulations by healthcare providers. Currently, and from time to time, some of our facilities are subjected to inquiries and/or actions and receive notices of potential non-compliance of laws and regulations from various federal and state agencies. Providers that are found to have violated these laws and regulations may be excluded from participating in government healthcare programs, subjected to potential licensure, certification, and/or accreditation revocation, subjected to fines or penalties or required to repay amounts received from the government for previously billed patient services. We monitor all aspects of our business and have developed a comprehensive ethics and compliance program that is designed to meet or exceed applicable federal guidelines and industry standards. Because the law in this area is complex and constantly evolving, governmental investigation or litigation may result in interpretations that are inconsistent with industry practices, including ours. Although we believe our policies, procedures and practices comply with governmental regulations, there is no assurance that we will not be faced with sanctions, fines or penalties in connection with such inquiries or actions, including with respect to the investigations and other matters discussed herein. Even if we were to ultimately prevail, such inquiries and/or actions could have a material adverse effect on us.

The outcome of any current or future litigation or governmental or internal investigations, including the matters described above, cannot be accurately predicted, nor can we predict any resulting penalties, fines or other sanctions that may be imposed at the discretion of federal or state regulatory authorities. We record accruals for such contingencies to the extent that we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described above because the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings may be exacerbated by various factors, including, but not limited to: (i) the damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; (ii) discovery is not complete; (iii) the proceeding is in its early stages; (iv) the matters present legal uncertainties; (v) there are significant facts in dispute; (vi) there are a large number of parties, or; (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes. It is possible that the outcome of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our future results of operations, financial position, cash flows and, potentially, our reputation.

In addition, various suits and claims arising against us in the ordinary course of business are pending. In the opinion of management, the outcome of such claims and litigation will not materially affect our consolidated financial position or results of operations.