Edgar Filing: LABORATORY CORP OF AMERICA HOLDINGS

labcorp10k.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

[X] Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010

[ ] Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the transition period from ______ to ______

Commission file number - 1-11353

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware		13-3757370
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

358 South Main Street,
Burlington, North Carolina		27215
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code) 336-229-1127

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class		Name of exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.10 par value		New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of Regulation S-K. Yes [X] No [ ].

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes [ ] No [X].

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ].

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (paragraph 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [X] No [ ].

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [ ].

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “small reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer [X]	Accelerated Filer [ ]
Non-accelerated filer [ ] (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller reporting company [ ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [ ] No [X].

As of June 30, 2010, the aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $7.8 billion, based on the closing price on such date of the registrant’s common stock on the New York Stock Exchange.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date: 100.0 million shares as of February 18, 2011.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

List hereunder the following documents incorporated by reference and the Part of the Form 10-K into which the document is incorporated:

Portions of the Registrant’s Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement to be filed no later than 120 days following December 31, 2010 are incorporated by reference into Part III.

Index

		Page
	Part I
Item 1.	Business	4
	The Clinical Laboratory Testing Industry and Competition	4
	Effect of Market Changes on the Clinical Laboratory Business	5
	Company Strategy	6
	Laboratory Testing Operations and Services	8
	Testing Services	8
	Clients	11
	Seasonality	12
	Payers	12
	Investments in Joint Venture Partnerships	12
	Sales, Marketing and Client Service	13
	Information Systems	13
	Billing	14
	Quality	14
	Intellectual Property Rights	16
	Employees	16
	Regulation and Reimbursement	16
	Compliance Program	23
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	24
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	32
Item 2.	Properties	33
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	34
Item 4.	(Removed and Reserved)	36

	Part II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters,
	and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	36
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	39
Item 7.	Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
	and Results of Operations	42
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	56
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	56
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting
	and Financial Disclosure	56
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	57
Item 9B.	Other Information	58

	Part III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	58
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	59
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
	and Related Stockholder Matters	59
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	59
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	59

	Part IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	59

PART I

Item 1. BUSINESS

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and its subsidiaries (the “Company”), headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina, is the second largest independent clinical laboratory company in the United States based on 2010 net revenues. Since the Company’s founding in 1971, it has grown into a national network of 51 primary laboratories and over 1,700 patient service centers (“PSCs”) along with a network of branches and STAT laboratories (which are laboratories that have the ability to perform certain routine tests quickly and report the results to the physician immediately). Through its national network of laboratories, the Company offers a broad range of clinical laboratory tests that are used by the medical profession in routine testing, patient diagnosis, and in the monitoring and treatment of disease. In addition, the Company has developed specialty testing operations, such as oncology testing, HIV genotyping and phenotyping, diagnostic genetics and clinical trials.

With over 31,000 employees worldwide, the Company processes tests on more than 440,000 patient specimens daily and provides clinical laboratory testing services to clients in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Belgium and three provinces in Canada. Its clients include physicians, hospitals, managed care organizations, governmental agencies, employers, pharmaceutical companies and other independent clinical laboratories that do not have the breadth of its testing capabilities. Several hundred of the Company’s tests are frequently used in general patient care by physicians to establish or support a diagnosis, to monitor treatment or to search for an otherwise undiagnosed condition. The most frequently-requested of these routine tests include blood chemistry analyses, urinalyses, blood cell counts, thyroid tests, Pap tests, HIV tests, microbiology cultures and procedures, and alcohol and other substance-abuse tests. The Company performs this core group of routine tests in its major laboratories using sophisticated and computerized instruments, with most results reported within 24 hours. In addition, the Company provides specialty testing services in the areas of allergy, clinical trials, diagnostic genetics, identity, forensics, infectious disease, oncology and occupational testing.

The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports are made available free of charge through the Investor Relations section of the Company’s internet website at www.labcorp.com as soon as practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is committed to providing the highest quality laboratory services to its clients in full compliance with all federal, state and local laws and regulations. The Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics outlines ethics and compliance policies adopted by the Company to meet this commitment. These policies apply to all employees of the Company as well as the Company’s Board of Directors. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, as well as the Charters for the Audit, Compensation, Quality and Compliance, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees, and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, are posted on the Company’s website www.labcorp.com. The Company has established a Compliance Action hotline (1-800-801-1005), which provides a confidential and anonymous method to report a possible violation of a LabCorp compliance policy or procedure, or a federal or state law or regulation; a HIPAA Privacy hotline (1-877-234-4722), which provides a confidential and anonymous method to report a possible violation of a HIPAA privacy, security or billing policy or procedure; and an Accounting hotline (1-866-469-6893), which provides a confidential and anonymous method to report a possible violation of internal accounting controls or auditing matters.

The Clinical Laboratory Testing Industry and Competition

Laboratory tests and procedures are used generally by hospitals, physicians and other health care providers and commercial clients to assist in the diagnosis, evaluation, detection, therapy selection, monitoring and treatment of diseases and other medical conditions through the examination of substances in the blood, tissues and other specimens. Clinical laboratory testing is generally categorized as either clinical pathology testing, which is performed on body fluids including blood, or anatomical pathology testing, which is performed on histologic or cytologic samples (e.g., tissue and other samples, including

human cells). Clinical and anatomical pathology procedures are frequently ordered as part of regular physician office visits and hospital admissions in connection with the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. Certain of these tests and procedures are used in the diagnosis and management of a wide variety of medical conditions such as cancer, infectious disease, endocrine disorders, cardiac disorders and genetic disease.

The clinical laboratory industry consists primarily of three types of providers: hospital-based laboratories, physician-office laboratories and independent clinical laboratories, such as those owned by the Company. The Company believes that in 2010, the United States clinical laboratory testing industry generated revenues of approximately $55 billion based on Washington G-2 reports and other industry publications. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") has estimated that in 2010 there were approximately 5,400 independent clinical laboratories in the United States.

The clinical laboratory business is intensely competitive. There are presently two major national independent clinical laboratories: the Company and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated ("Quest"), which had approximately $6.7 billion in revenues from clinical laboratory testing in 2010. In addition, the Company competes with many smaller independent clinical and anatomical laboratories as well as laboratories owned by hospitals and physicians. The Company believes that health care providers in selecting a laboratory often consider the following factors, among others:

·	accuracy, timeliness and consistency in reporting test results;
·	reputation of the laboratory in the medical community or field of specialty;
·	contractual relationships with managed care companies;
·	service capability and convenience offered by the laboratory;
·	number and type of tests performed;
·	connectivity solutions offered; and
·	pricing of the laboratory’s services.

The Company believes that consolidation will continue in the clinical laboratory testing business. In addition, the Company believes that it and the other large independent clinical laboratory testing companies will be able to increase their share of the overall clinical laboratory testing market due to a number of external factors including cost efficiencies afforded by large-scale automated testing, reimbursement reductions and managed health care entities that require cost efficient testing services and large service networks. In addition, legal restrictions on physician referrals and their ownership of laboratories as well as increased regulation of laboratories are expected to contribute to the continuing consolidation of the industry.

Effect of Market Changes on the Clinical Laboratory Business

Many market-based changes in the clinical laboratory business have occurred over the past ten years, primarily as a result of the shift away from traditional, fee-for-service medicine to managed-cost health care. The growth of the managed care sector and consolidation of managed care companies present various challenges and opportunities to the Company and other independent clinical laboratories. During 2006, the Company signed a ten-year agreement with UnitedHealthcare to become its exclusive national laboratory. This agreement represented an industry first in terms of its length and exclusivity at a national level. The various managed care organizations (“MCOs”) have different contracting philosophies. Some MCOs contract with a limited number of clinical laboratories and negotiate fees charged by such laboratories. Other MCOs allow any willing provider to be contracted at specified rates. The Company’s ability to attract and retain managed care clients is critical given these evolving models. In addition, some MCOs have used capitated payment contracts in an attempt to fix the cost of laboratory testing services for their enrollees. Under a capitated payment contract, the clinical laboratory and the managed care

organization agree to a per member, per month payment to pay for all authorized laboratory tests ordered during the month by the physician for the members, regardless of the number or cost of the tests actually performed. The Company makes significant efforts to ensure that its services are adequately compensated in its capitated arrangements, including in some instances provisions to reimburse esoteric tests (which are more sophisticated tests used to obtain information not provided by routine tests and generally involve a higher level of complexity and more substantial human involvement than routine tests) on a fee-for service basis, as an exclusion to the capitation payment. Capitated payment contracts shift the risks of increased test utilization to the clinical laboratory. For the year ended December 31, 2010, such capitated contracts accounted for approximately $155.1 million, or 3.1%, of the Company’s net sales.

In addition, Medicare (which principally services patients 65 and older), Medicaid (which principally services low-income patients) and insurers have increased their efforts to control the cost, utilization and delivery of health care services. Measures to regulate health care delivery in general and clinical laboratories in particular have resulted in reduced prices, added costs and decreased test utilization for the clinical laboratory industry by increasing complexity and adding new regulatory and administrative requirements. From time to time, Congress has also considered changes to the Medicare fee schedules, and the Company believes that pressure to reduce reimbursement for Medicare services will continue. In March 2010 comprehensive health care reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), was enacted, and among its provisions were reductions in the Medicare clinical laboratory fee schedule updates, one of which is a permanent reduction and the other to be applied in 2011 through 2015. Similar pressure for reductions in the reimbursement rates of other third-party payers is likely to occur as well.

Despite the potential market changes discussed above, the Company believes that the volume of clinical laboratory testing will be positively influenced by several factors, including an expanded insured population under ACA, increased knowledge of the human genome leading to an enhanced appreciation of the value of gene-based diagnostic assays and the development of new therapeutics that have a “companion diagnostic” to help identify the sub-set of the population for whom it is effective or that may suffer adverse events.

The Company believes its enhanced esoteric menu and geographic footprint provide a strong platform for growth. Additional factors that may lead to future volume growth include an increase in the number and types of tests that are readily available (due to advances in technology and increased cost efficiencies) for testing and diagnosis of disease and the general aging of the population in the United States. The impact of these factors is expected to be partially offset by declines in volume as a result of increased controls over the utilization of laboratory services by Medicare and other third-party payers, particularly MCOs. In addition, movement by patients into consumer driven health plans may have an impact on the utilization of laboratory testing.

Company Strategy

The Company’s strategic plan continues to focus on three critical priorities: scientific differentiation, managed care, and customer service. While these pillars remain the same, the activities and initiatives within each area are increasingly being focused on strengthening LabCorp’s leadership role in personalized medicine.

Personalized medicine is a new growth area for health care in which care is tailored (or “personalized”) to each individual. The Company is playing an important role in many aspects of this emerging model including the development of new companion diagnostics to help identify appropriate applications for new and existing drugs, as well as providing services such as those offered by Litholink Corporation (“Litholink”) a subsidiary of the Company that helps physicians better utilize lab information to tailor care for their patients.

Scientific Differentiation

The Company’s capabilities, resources, and expertise have been developed as part of the Company’s long-term commitment to scientific differentiation and are now supporting growth opportunities in the field of personalized medicine. One core attribute of personalized medicine is a model of care in which

treatments and therapeutics are tailored to an individual, often based on his or her genetic signature (or that of a particular tumor/strain of virus). LabCorp was a leader in one of the first major advances in personalized medicine, which was HIV genotyping to test for resistance to specific drugs. The Company continues to build on this legacy through the development of new tests and/or resources such as the January 2011 release of the Virology Report on the Company’s research web page, the acquisition of new and/or expanded capabilities such as the 2010 and 2009 acquisitions of Genzyme Genetics and Monogram Biosciences, Inc. (“Monogram”), respectively, and by exploring additional disease management areas.

Through its clinical trials division, the Company has taken a leadership role in working with pharmaceutical companies to develop companion diagnostics. The Company’s capabilities in assay development, its access to a broad spectrum of testing platforms, and its experience with clinical trials has positioned LabCorp as a market leader. The Company continues to add capabilities to strengthen this companion diagnostics offering, including the 2008 acquisition of Tandem Labs, a premier contract research organization specializing in advanced mass spectrometry, immunoanalytical support, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics for early stage clinical trials. The Company also opened a new state-of-the-art biorepository for sample storage and retention in 2009. In 2010, the Company announced a collaboration between the Company and Clearstone Central Laboratories, a global central laboratory specializing in drug development and pharmaceutical services. The collaboration provides the Company with access to Clearstone’s global network of labs, including China, France, Singapore and Canada. The pharmaceutical industry is increasingly conducting work outside of North America and the Company is now able to perform work internationally.

Beyond clinical trials, there are also many examples where companion diagnostics have moved into the commercial setting and are helping improve care by: (1) assisting in determining the efficacy of a drug for an individual; (2) ensuring the correct dosage; and (3) reducing adverse events. The Company will continue to play an important role in both bringing new companion diagnostics to the market and making them commercially available once the drug has been approved.

Managed Care

The Company continues to strengthen its relationship with MCOs by providing value added capabilities and services. Through data sharing arrangements, health fairs, and targeted screening programs, the Company provides support to our managed care customers in their disease management programs, pay for performance programs and other initiatives focused on improving care and decreasing costs.

The Company's comprehensive test menu, national infrastructure, logistics network, and standardized platforms and robust connectivity solutions, provide our managed care customers with a high quality and cost-effective solution for delivering laboratory services to their members. These assets also position the Company to directly support the success of Patient Centered Medical Homes (“PCMH”) and Accountable Care Organizations.

Additionally, the Company’s specialized esoteric testing expertise, including a national network of over 160 genetic counselors (enhanced with the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics), also position the Company well to play a key role in the new tools and capabilities being developed within the framework of personalized medicine. By utilizing personalized medicine capabilities, managed care customers have the opportunity to enhance the quality of care and outcomes for their members. For example, a number of such services are offered by the Company's Litholink subsidiary, which is focused on providing patient specific clinical guidance to physicians that in turn leads to improved care, increased enrollee satisfaction and decreased costs. The current programs target kidney stone management for recurring kidney stones and chronic kidney disease (“CKD”), which affects over 30 million Americans. Litholink is the market leader in testing for recurrent kidney stones and health plans and a growing number of physician groups are now using or implementing the CKD system.

Customer Service

The Company is committed to delivering the highest level of service to its customers and as such has

introduced a number of tools and capabilities that will further improve the physician and patient experience. The Company launched new online services and capabilities including an improved PSC locator, patient appointment scheduling at most PSCs and workflow automation tools in more than 400 PSCs. The Touch PSC workflow automation tool will be deployed more broadly throughout 2011.

The Company offers a variety of connectivity solutions including web based pathology workflow tools, convenient access to results for providers and LabCorp Beacon to early adopter clients in 2010. LabCorp Beacon is the Company’s new online gateway for client lab connectivity, including results, orders, trending and the ability to easily share information within a provider practice and with other providers. LabCorp Beacon and LabCorp Beacon Mobile will be deployed broadly throughout 2011. The Company also introduced a co-branded Electronic Health Records (“EHR”) Lite solution for physician practices that is certified to meet Stage 1 Certification Criteria for Meaningful Use. Meeting Meaningful Use of EHR Technology criteria allows providers to receive incentives and avoid penalties in payments from Medicare and Medicaid. The Company’s open platform integrates easily with a wide variety of existing electronic medical records and practice management systems, enabling physician access to testing services without changing the software systems they use for the rest of their practice needs.

Laboratory Testing Operations and Services

The Company has a national network of primary testing laboratories, specialty testing laboratories, branches, PSCs and STAT laboratories. A branch is a central facility that collects specimens in a region for shipment to one of the Company's laboratories for testing. A branch is also frequently used as a base for sales and distribution staff. Generally, a PSC is a facility maintained by the Company to serve the patients of physicians in a medical professional building or other strategic location. The PSC collects the specimens for testing as requested by the physician. The specimens are sent, principally through the Company's in-house courier system (and, to a lesser extent, through independent couriers), to one of the Company's primary testing facilities for testing. Some of the Company's PSCs also function as STAT labs, which are laboratories that have the ability to perform certain routine tests quickly and report results to the physician immediately. Patient specimens are typically delivered to the Company accompanied by a test request form (electronic or hard copy). These forms, which are completed by the client or transcribed by a Company patient service technician from a client order, indicate the tests to be performed and provide the necessary billing information.

Each specimen and related request form is checked for completeness and then given a unique identification number. The unique identification number assigned to each specimen helps to ensure that the results are attributed to the correct patient. The test request forms are sent to a data entry operator who ensures that a file is established for each patient and the necessary testing and billing information is entered. Once this information is entered into the software system, the tests are performed and the results are entered through an electronic data interchange interface or manually, depending upon the tests and the type of equipment involved. Most of the Company's automated testing equipment is connected to the Company's information systems. Most routine testing is completed by early the next morning and test results are in most cases electronically delivered to clients via smart printers, personal computer-based products or computer interfaces.

Testing Services

Routine Testing

The Company offers a broad range of clinical laboratory tests and procedures. Several hundred of these are frequently used in general patient care by physicians to establish or support a diagnosis, to monitor treatment or medication, or to search for an otherwise undiagnosed condition. The most frequently requested tests include blood chemistry analyses, urinalyses, blood cell counts, thyroid tests, Pap tests, microbiology cultures and procedures and alcohol and other substance-abuse tests. These routine procedures are most often used by physicians in their outpatient office practices. Physicians may elect to send such procedures to an independent laboratory or they may choose to establish their own laboratory to perform some of the tests.

The Company performs this core group of routine tests in each of its primary laboratories. This testing

constitutes a majority of the tests performed by the Company. The Company generally performs and reports most routine procedures within 24 hours, utilizing a variety of sophisticated and computerized laboratory testing instruments.

Specialty Testing

While the information provided by many routine tests may be used by nearly all physicians, regardless of specialty, many other procedures are more specialized. One of the growth strategies of the Company is the continued expansion of its specialty testing operations, which involve certain types of unique testing capabilities and/or client requirements. In general, the specialty testing operations serve two market segments: (i) markets that are not typically served by the standard clinical testing laboratory; and (ii) markets that are served by the clinical testing laboratory and offer the possibility of adding related services (such as clinical trials or occupational drug testing) from the same supplier. The Company’s research and development group continually seeks new and improved technologies for a variety of diagnostic and prognostic indications. For example, the Company’s Center for Molecular Biology and Pathology (“CMBP”) is a leader in molecular diagnostics, utilizing the polymerase chain reaction (“PCR”) as well as other molecular technologies, which are often able to provide earlier, more reliable and detailed information about cancer, genetic diseases, HIV and other viral and bacterial diseases. The Company’s subsidiary, National Genetics Institute, Inc. (“NGI”), is a leader in the development of PCR assays for detection of pathogens in biologic products, and its Viro-Med Laboratories, Inc. subsidiary offers molecular microbial testing using real time PCR platforms. DIANON Systems, Inc. is a leader in anatomic pathology testing and US LABS is a leader in anatomic pathology and oncology testing services. The Company’s subsidiary, Esoterix, is a leading provider of specialty reference testing and Litholink is a nationally-recognized kidney stone analysis laboratory known for its extensive stone management program. Management believes these technologies represent potential significant savings to the healthcare system either by increasing the detection of early stage (treatable) diseases or by more effectively managing chronic disease conditions. In August 2009, the Company acquired Monogram, an industry leader in HIV resistance testing, which has developed new technologies in oncology such as the accurate measurement of proteins involved in cancer development and/or progression. In December 2010, the Company acquired Genzyme Genetics, a leading provider of complex reproductive and oncology testing services and the preferred provider for such services to maternal fetal medicine specialists and obstetrician/gynecologists nationally. The expansive menu of complex tests offered include technologies that span the continuum of care, ranging from maternal serum screening and prenatal diagnostics to carrier screening and postnatal testing services. Genzyme Genetics also has a broad network of board-certified geneticists and genetic counselors, offering infertility and prenatal genetic counseling expertise to physicians and patients. The following are specialty testing operations in which the Company offers testing and related services:

Infectious Disease. The Company provides complete HIV testing services including viral load measurements, genotyping and phenotyping and host genetic factors (HLAB5701 and IL-28B) that are all important tools in managing and treating HIV infections. The addition of the Monogram resistance tests, PhenoSense, PhenoSenseGT and Trofile, complement the existing HIV GenoSureÔ assay and provide an industry leading, comprehensive portfolio of HIV resistance testing services. The Company also provides extensive testing services for HCV infections including both viral load determinations and strain genotyping at CMBP, NGI and Viro-Med. The Company continues to develop other molecular assays for influenza viruses including H1N1. In January 2011, the Company published on its website a comprehensive virology report that detailed the results from hundreds of thousands of infectious disease tests performed every year. The report analyzes the vast amount of data gathered at the Company to inform clinicians, public health authorities and other laboratory scientists regarding viral frequencies, distributions, trends, genotypes and associations.

Diagnostic Genetics. The Company offers cytogenetic, molecular cytogenetic, biochemical and molecular genetic tests. The biochemical genetics offerings include a variety of prenatal screening options including integrated and sequential prenatal assays for more sensitive assessment of Down syndrome risk. The Company has expanded its cytogenetics offerings through the use of whole genome SNP microarray technology, which provides enhanced detection of subtle chromosomal changes associated with the etiology of mental retardation, developmental delay and autism. The molecular genetics services have been expanded to include multiplex analyses of a variety of

disorders and a focus on gene sequencing applications for both somatic and germ-line alterations. The addition of Genzyme Genetics in December 2010 provides the Company with the most comprehensive genetic test menu in the industry as well as a complement of over 160 genetic counselors to work with the Company’s physician clients in optimizing patient outcomes.

Oncology Testing. The Company offers an extensive series of testing technologies that aid in diagnosing and monitoring certain cancers and predicting the outcome of certain treatments. The acquisitions of Dianon, US LABS and Esoterix further expanded the Company’s capabilities in specialized pathology; including hematopathology, dermatopathology and uropathology. Applications for molecular diagnostics continue to increase in oncology for both the analysis of leukemia as well as the assessment of solid tumors. In cancers such as colon and lung cancer, assays such as K-ras, BRAF and EGFR mutation analysis are associated with appropriate therapy choices for a given patient.

Clinical Trials Testing. The Company regularly performs clinical laboratory testing for pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies conducting clinical research trials on new drugs or diagnostic assays. This testing often involves periodic testing of patients participating in the trial over several years. In 2008, the Company acquired Tandem Labs, a leading bioanalytical and immunoanalytical clinical research testing laboratory supporting pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with their discovery, preclinical and clinical drug development programs. In 2010, the Company announced a collaboration between the Company and Clearstone Central Laboratories, a global central laboratory specializing in drug development and pharmaceutical services. The Company has made a concerted effort in companion diagnostics to translate predictive biomarkers used in clinical trials into clinical practice.

Identity Testing. The Company provides forensic identity testing used in connection with criminal proceedings and parentage evaluation services which are used to assist in determining parentage for child support enforcement proceedings and determining genetic relationships for immigration purposes. Parentage testing involves the evaluation of immunological and genetic markers in specimens obtained from the child, the mother and the alleged father. The Company also provides testing services in reconstruction cases, which assist in determining parentage without the presence of the parent in question.

Occupational Testing Services. The Company provides testing services for the detection of drug and alcohol abuse for private and government customers. These testing services are designed to produce "forensic" quality test results that satisfy the rigorous requirements for admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings. The Company also provides other analytical testing and a variety of management support services.

The specialized testing services noted above, as well as other complex procedures, are sent to designated facilities where the Company has concentrated the resources for performing these procedures so that quality and efficiency can be most effectively monitored. CMBP, NGI, Viro-Med, Dianon, US LABS, Esoterix, Monogram and Genzyme Genetics also specialize in new test development and related education and training.

Development of New Tests

Advances in medicine continue to fundamentally change diagnostic testing, and new tests are allowing clinical laboratories to provide unprecedented amounts of health-related information to physicians and patients. New molecular diagnostic tests that have been introduced over the past several years, including a gene-based test for human papillomavirus, HIV drug resistance assays, and molecular genetic testing for cystic fibrosis, have now become part of standard clinical practice. The Company continued its industry leadership in gene-based and esoteric testing, generating $1.7 billion in revenue and growing this category of testing approximately 8% during 2010. As science continues to advance, the Company expects new testing technologies to emerge; therefore, it intends to continue to invest in advanced testing capabilities so that it can remain on the cutting edge of diagnostic laboratory testing. The Company has added, and expects to continue to add, new testing technologies and capabilities through a combination of internal development initiatives, technology licensing and partnership transactions and selected business

acquisitions. Through its national sales force, the Company rapidly introduces new testing technologies to physician customers. This differentiation is important in the retention and growth of business.

In 2010, the Company continued its emphasis on scientific vision and leadership with the introduction of approximately 130 significant test menu and automation enhancements. The Company is focused on the expansion of existing programs in molecular diagnostics as well as the introduction of new assay and assay platforms through licensing partnerships, acquisitions and internal development. Evidence of the commitment to the development of new diagnostics and applications for those diagnostics was provided in the more than 50 scientific publications and 100 scientific meeting presentations authored by the Company’s scientific team in 2010. Examples of new tests introduced in 2010 include a genomic test for IL28-B that will help physicians predict the rate of response for their patients infected with Hepatitis C; Galectin-3 for use in conjunction with clinical evaluation as an aid in assessing the prognosis of patients with chronic heart failure; and the Company has expanded its next generation sequencing capabilities.

The Company has continued working with university, hospital and academic institutions such as Duke University, The Johns Hopkins University, the University of Minnesota and Yale University to license and commercialize new diagnostic tests.

Clients

The Company provides testing services to a broad range of health care providers. During the year ended December 31, 2010, no client or group of clients under the same contract accounted for more than approximately 9% of the Company’s consolidated net sales. The primary client groups serviced by the Company include:

Independent Physicians and Physician Groups

Physicians requiring testing for their patients are one of the Company’s primary sources of testing services. Fees for clinical laboratory testing services rendered for these physicians are billed either to the physician, to the patient or the patient’s third-party payer such as an insurance company, Medicare or Medicaid. Billings are typically on a fee-for-service basis. If the billings are to the physician, they are based on a customer fee schedule and are subject to negotiation. Otherwise, the patient or third-party payer is billed at the laboratory’s patient fee schedule, subject to third-party payer limitations and negotiation by physicians on behalf of their patients. Revenues received from Medicare and Medicaid billings are based on government-set fee schedules and reimbursement rules.

Hospitals

The Company provides hospitals with services ranging from routine and specialty testing to contract management services. Hospitals generally maintain an on-site laboratory to perform immediately needed testing of patients receiving care. However, they also refer less time sensitive procedures, less frequently needed procedures and highly specialized procedures to outside facilities, including independent clinical laboratories and larger medical centers. The Company typically charges hospitals for any such tests on a fee-for-service basis which is derived from the Company’s customer fee schedule. Fees for management services are billed monthly at contractual rates.

Managed Care Organizations

The Company serves many MCOs. The various MCOs have different contracting philosophies. Some MCOs contract with a limited number of clinical laboratories and negotiate fees charged by such laboratories. Other MCOs allow any willing provider to be contracted at specified rates. The majority of the Company's managed care testing is negotiated on a fee-for-service basis. Testing is sometimes reimbursed on a capitated basis for MCOs. Under a capitated payment contract, the Company agrees to be paid a flat monthly fee for each covered member for certain laboratory tests performed for covered members during that month. The tests covered under agreements of this type are negotiated for each contract. Many of the national and large regional MCOs prefer to use large independent clinical labs such as the Company because the MCOs can monitor service and performance on a national basis.

Other Institutions

The Company serves other institutions, including government agencies, large employers and other independent clinical laboratories that do not have the breadth of the Company’s testing capabilities. The institutions typically pay on a negotiated fee-for-service basis.

Seasonality

The Company experiences seasonality in its testing business. The volume of testing generally declines during the year-end holiday periods and other major holidays. Volume can also decline due to inclement weather, reducing net revenues and cash flows. Given the seasonality of the testing business, comparison of results for successive quarters may not accurately reflect trends or results for the full year.

Payers

Testing services are billed to private patients, Medicare, Medicaid, commercial clients, MCOs and other insurance companies. Tests ordered by a physician may be billed to different payers depending on the medical benefits of a particular patient. Most testing services are billed to a party other than the physician or other authorized person who ordered the test. For the year ended December 31, 2010, requisitions (based on the total volume of requisitions excluding the Ontario, Canada joint venture) and average revenue per requisition by payer are as follows:

	Requisition			Revenue
	Volume			per
	as a % of Total			Requisition
Private Patients		1.9	%	$	166.92
Medicare and Medicaid		18.1	%	$	48.46
Commercial Clients		31.1	%	$	37.68
Managed Care		48.9	%	$	39.06

A portion of the managed care fee-for-service revenues are collectible from patients in the form of deductibles, copayments and coinsurance.

Investments in Joint Venture Partnerships

Effective January 1, 2008, the Company acquired additional partnership units in its Ontario, Canada joint venture, bringing the Company’s percentage interest owned to 85.6%. Concurrent with this acquisition, the terms of the joint venture’s partnership agreement were amended. Based upon the amended terms of this agreement, the Company began including the consolidated operating results, financial position and cash flows of the Ontario, Canada joint venture in the Company’s consolidated financial statements on January 1, 2008. The amended joint venture’s partnership agreement also enabled the holders of the noncontrolling interest to put the remaining partnership units to the Company in defined future periods, at an initial amount equal to the consideration paid by the Company in 2008, and subject to adjustment based on market value formulas contained in the agreement. The initial difference of $123.0 between the value of the put and the underlying noncontrolling interest was recorded as additional noncontrolling interest liability and as a reduction to additional paid-in capital in the consolidated financial statements.

In December 2009, the Company received notification from the holders of the noncontrolling interest in the Ontario joint venture that they intended to put their remaining partnership units to the Company in accordance with the terms of the joint venture’s partnership agreement. These units were acquired on February 8, 2010 for $137.5. On February 17, 2010, the Company completed a transaction to sell the units acquired from the previous noncontrolling interest holder to a new Canadian partner for the same price. As a result of this transaction, the Company recorded a component of noncontrolling interest in other liabilities and a component in mezzanine equity. Upon the completion of these two transactions, the Company’s financial ownership percentage in the joint venture partnership remained unchanged at 85.6%. Concurrent with the sale to the new partner, the partnership agreement for the Ontario joint venture was amended and restated with substantially the same terms as the previous agreement. The

combined contractual value of these puts, in excess of the current noncontrolling interest of $25.2, totals $143.5 at December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2010, $148.1 has been classified as a current liability in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as the noncontrolling interest that acquired these units has the ability to put its units in the partnership to the Company on December 31, 2011.

The Company also holds investments in three other joint venture partnerships, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Alberta, Canada and Cincinnati, Ohio. These businesses represent partnership agreements between the Company and other independent diagnostic laboratory investors. Under these agreements, all partners share in the profits and losses of the businesses in proportion to their respective ownership percentages. All partners are actively involved in the major business decisions made by each joint venture.

Each of the Canadian partnerships owns licenses to conduct diagnostic testing services in its respective provinces. Substantially all of their revenues are received as reimbursement from the provincial governments’ health care programs. While the Canadian licenses guarantee the joint ventures the ability to conduct diagnostic testing in their respective provinces, they do not guarantee that the provincial governments will continue to reimburse diagnostic laboratory testing in future years at current levels. If the provincial governments decide to limit or reduce their reimbursement of laboratory diagnostic services, it could have a negative impact on the profits and cash flows the Company derives from these Canadian joint ventures.

Sales, Marketing and Client Service

The Company offers its services through a sales force focused on serving the specific needs of customers in different market segments. These market segments generally include Primary Care Obstetrics-Gynecology, Specialty Medicine (e.g. Infectious Disease, Endocrinology, Gastroenterology and Rheumatology), Oncology and Hospitals.

The Company’s sales force is compensated through a combination of salaries, commissions and bonuses at levels commensurate with each individual’s qualifications, performance and responsibilities. The general sales force is responsible for both new sales and customer retention. This general sales force is also supported by a team of Clinical Specialists who focus on selling esoteric testing and meeting the unique needs of the specialty medicine markets.

The Company competes primarily on the basis of quality of testing, breadth of menu, price, innovation of services, convenience and access points throughout the nation.

Information Systems

The Company has developed and implemented information management systems (“IS”) supporting its operations as well as positioning the Company for long-term growth. The Company has implemented standard platforms for its core business services including laboratory, billing, financial and reporting systems. These standard systems ensure consistency and availability on a national scale. With approximately 82% of the Company’s consolidated revenue processed through these systems, the Company’s centralized IS platforms provide tremendous operational efficiencies, enabling the Company to provide consistent, structured, and standardized laboratory results and superior patient care at a national level.

In response to increased market demand around the need for electronic consumption of laboratory data and a commitment to improving the patient experience, the Company continues to extend its platforms with new capabilities and services. The Company continues to leverage information technology advancements to automate PSC workflow and lab processing, as well as provide patient online appointments, patient health record (“PHR”) integration and increased online access including mobile device access to information and services. Additionally, the Company will continue to improve client connectivity through a new client platform designed to improve lab related workflow such as ordering tests and sharing, viewing and analyzing lab results. The new client product is also available in a mobile edition accessible via iPhone and iPad. This product is a key component of the Company’s connectivity portfolio, whereby the Company provides physicians a choice of tailored solutions that also include

robust integration with electronic medical records/electronic health records and PHR applications.

The focus on the advancement of health information technology is a reflection of the growing demand for self-service, integrated healthcare data and decision support capabilities. The Company’s centralized analytic platform is well positioned to deliver enhanced analytic services and decision support to physicians, hospitals, local communities, state agencies and national networks. The Company believes that this standardized laboratory data will be even more important and valuable to its customers as the Company continues to develop and refine disease management programs that reduce costs and enable better patient care.

Billing

Billing for laboratory services is a complicated process involving many payers such as MCOs, Medicare, Medicaid, doctors, patients and employer groups, all of which have different billing requirements. In addition, billing process arrangements with third-party administrators may further complicate the billing process.

The Company utilizes a centralized billing system in the collection of approximately 82% of its accounts receivable. This system generates bills to customers based on the payer type. Client billing is typically generated monthly, whereas patient and third-party billing are typically generated daily. Agings of accounts receivable are then monitored by billing personnel and re-bills and follow-up activities are conducted as necessary. Bad debt expense is recorded within selling, general and administrative expenses as a percentage of sales considered necessary to maintain the allowance for doubtful accounts at an appropriate level, based on the Company's experience with its accounts receivable. The Company writes off accounts against the allowance for doubtful accounts when they are deemed to be uncollectible. For client billing, third party and managed care, accounts are written off when all reasonable collection efforts prove to be unsuccessful. Patient accounts are written off after the normal dunning cycle has occurred and the account has been transferred to a third-party collection agency.

A significant portion of the Company’s bad debt expense is related to accounts receivable from patients. This portion of the Company’s bad debt expense is from the patient’s unwillingness or inability to pay. In 2010, the Company continued its focus on process initiatives to reduce the negative impact of patient accounts receivable by collecting payment at the point of service and refining its internal patient collection cycle. The Company also provides ongoing training for billing personnel to improve collections during phone calls.

Another component of the Company’s bad debt expense is the result of non-credit related issues that slow the billing process, such as missing or incorrect billing information on requisitions. The Company generally performs the requested tests and returns the test results regardless of whether billing information is incorrect or incomplete. The Company subsequently attempts to obtain any missing information or rectify any incorrect billing information received from the health care provider. The Company believes that this experience is similar to that of its primary competitors. The Company continues to focus on process initiatives aimed at reducing the impact of these non-credit related issues by reducing the number of requisitions received that are missing billing information or have incorrect information. This is accomplished through on-going identification of root-cause issues and training provided to internal and external resources involved in the patient data capture process.

Quality

The Company has established a comprehensive quality management program for its laboratories and other facilities designed to assure quality systems and processes are in place to facilitate accurate and timely test results. This includes licensing, credentialing, training and competency of professional and technical staff, and process audits. In addition to the external inspections and proficiency testing programs required by CMS and other regulatory agencies, systems and procedures are in place to emphasize and monitor quality. All of the Company’s regional laboratories are subject to on-site regulatory evaluations, external proficiency testing programs (e.g., the College of American Pathologists - “CAP”), state surveys and the Company's own quality control programs.

Quality also encompasses all facets of the Company’s service, including turnaround time, client service, patient satisfaction, and billing. The Company’s quality assessment program includes measures that compare its current performance against desired performance goals detailed in its quality improvement plan. Using quality assessment techniques, the Company’s laboratories employ a variety of programs to monitor critical aspects of service to its clients and patients.

In addition, the Company’s supply chain management department provides oversight to monitoring and controlling vendor products and performance, and plays an essential role in the Company’s approach to quality through improvements in automation.

Customer Interaction. Processes to continually improve the customers’ experience with the Company are essential. Use of technology and improvements in workflow within the Company’s PSCs is helping to reduce patient wait times by expediting the patient registration process (LabCorp Patient Appointment Scheduling) and ensuring that appropriate specimens are obtained based upon requested test requirements (LabCorp AccuDraw).

Specimen Management. The use of logistics and specimen tracking technology allows the timely transportation, monitoring, validation and storage of specimens. The Company is continually improving its ability to timely collect, transport and track specimens from clients and between LabCorp locations.

Quality Control. The Company regularly performs quality control testing by running quality control samples with known values at the same time patient samples are tested. Quality control test results are entered into the Company's computerized quality control database. This allows for real-time monitoring for any statistically and clinically significant analytical differences, and enables technologists and technicians to take immediate and appropriate corrective action prior to release of patient results.

Internal Proficiency Testing. The Company has an extensive internal proficiency testing program in which each laboratory receives samples to test. This internal proficiency program serves to test the Company’s analytical and post-analytical phases of laboratory testing service including order entry, requisitioning systems, accuracy, precision of its testing protocols, and technologist/technician performance. This program supplements the external proficiency programs required by the laboratory accrediting agencies.

Accreditation. The Company participates in numerous externally-administered quality surveillance programs, including the CAP program. CAP is an independent non-governmental organization of board-certified pathologists which offers an accreditation program to which laboratories voluntarily subscribe. CAP has been granted deemed status authority by CMS to inspect clinical laboratories to determine adherence to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”) standards. The CAP program involves both on-site inspections of the laboratory and participation in CAP's proficiency testing program for all categories in which the laboratory is accredited. All of the Company's major laboratories are accredited by CAP. A laboratory’s receipt of accreditation by CAP satisfies the CMS requirement for certification.

The Company's forensic crime laboratory, located at Research Triangle Park, NC, is accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, Laboratory Accreditation Board (“ASCLD/LAB”) under the International program in the category of Biology and subcategories of nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA and Serology testing. Under the International Accreditation Program managed by the ASCLD/LAB, a crime laboratory undergoes a comprehensive and in-depth inspection to demonstrate that its management, operations, employees, procedures and instruments, physical plant, and security and personnel safety procedures meet stringent quality standards. The Company is one of 102 ASCLD-International accredited crime laboratories worldwide and is one of only 9 private crime laboratories holding the accreditation.

The Company’s Tampa, Florida primary testing laboratory and CMBP received ISO 15189:2007 accreditation in January 2010 and February 2011, respectively. The Genzyme Genetics’ laboratories in Phoenix, Arizona and Temple Terrace, Florida are also ISO 15189:2007 accredited. ISO 15189:2007 standard recognizes the technical competence of medical laboratories, thus providing a ready means for customers to find reliable testing and calibration services.

Intellectual Property Rights

The Company relies on a combination of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and nondisclosure and non-competition agreements to establish and protect its proprietary technology. The Company has filed and obtained numerous patents in the U.S. and abroad, and regularly files patent applications, when appropriate, to establish and protect its proprietary technology. From time to time, the Company also licenses U.S. and non-U.S. patents, patent applications, technology, trade secrets, know-how, copyrights or trademarks owned by others. The Company believes, however, that no single patent, technology, trademark, intellectual property asset or license is material to its business as a whole.

Employees

As of January 31, 2011, the Company had over 31,000 full-time equivalent employees worldwide. Subsidiaries of the Company have three collective bargaining agreements, which cover approximately 600 employees. The Company’s success is highly dependent on its ability to attract and retain qualified employees, and the Company believes that it has good overall relationships with its employees.

Regulation and Reimbursement

General

The clinical laboratory industry is subject to significant governmental regulation at the federal, state and local levels. As described below, these regulations concern licensure and operation of clinical laboratories, payment for laboratory services, health care fraud and abuse, security and confidentiality of health information, quality, and environmental and occupational safety.

Regulation of Clinical Laboratories

CLIA extended federal oversight to virtually all clinical laboratories by requiring that they be certified by the federal government or by a federally-approved accreditation agency. CLIA requires that all clinical laboratories meet quality assurance, quality control and personnel standards. Laboratories also must undergo proficiency testing and are subject to inspections.

Standards for testing under CLIA are based on the complexity of the tests performed by the laboratory, with tests classified as "high complexity," "moderate complexity," or "waived." Laboratories performing high complexity testing are required to meet more stringent requirements than moderate complexity laboratories. Laboratories performing only waived tests, which are tests determined by the Food and Drug Administration to have a low potential for error and requiring little oversight, may apply for a certificate of waiver exempting them from most of the requirements of CLIA. All major and many smaller Company facilities hold CLIA certificates to perform high complexity testing. The Company's remaining smaller testing sites hold CLIA certificates to perform moderate complexity testing or a certificate of waiver. The sanctions for failure to comply with CLIA requirements include suspension, revocation or limitation of a laboratory's CLIA certificate, which is necessary to conduct business, cancellation or suspension of the laboratory's approval to receive Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement, as well as significant fines and/or criminal penalties. The loss or suspension of a CLIA certification, imposition of a fine or other penalties, or future changes in the CLIA law or regulations (or interpretation of the law or regulations) could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

On July 26, 2007, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued Draft Guidance for Industry, Clinical Laboratories, and FDA Staff: In Vitro Diagnostic Multivariate Index Assays (“the Draft Guidance”). The Draft Guidance announced that devices deemed In Vitro Diagnostic Multivariate Index Assays (“IVDMIAs”) are Class II or Class III devices requiring, among other things, pre-market notification clearance or pre-market approval from FDA. This guidance would change the agency’s historical practice regarding regulation of certain laboratory-developed tests. While the Draft Guidance is still in place, FDA indicated in June 2010 that they would not be issuing final guidance at this time but would, instead, consider exercising greater oversight of laboratory developed test using a risk-based approach. In July 2010 FDA held a series of public meetings regarding issues and stakeholder concerns related to lab developed tests but has taken no further action and issued no further guidance at this time.

There are other regulatory and legislative proposals that would increase general FDA oversight of clinical laboratories and laboratory-developed tests. The outcome and ultimate impact of such proposals on the business is difficult to predict at this time.

The Company is also subject to state and local laboratory regulation. CLIA provides that a state may adopt laboratory regulations different from or more stringent than those under federal law, and a number of states have implemented their own laboratory regulatory schemes. State laws may require that laboratory personnel meet certain qualifications, specify certain quality controls, or require maintenance of certain records.

The Company believes that it is in compliance with all applicable laboratory requirements. The Company's laboratories have continuing programs to ensure that their operations meet all such regulatory requirements, but no assurances can be given that the Company's laboratories will pass all future licensure or certification inspections.

Payment for Clinical Laboratory Services

In 2010, the Company derived approximately 19.4% of its net sales directly from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In addition, the Company's other business depends significantly on continued participation in these programs and in other government healthcare programs, in part because clients often want a single laboratory to perform all of their testing services. In recent years, both governmental and private sector payers have made efforts to contain or reduce health care costs, including reducing reimbursement for clinical laboratory services.

Reimbursement under the Medicare program for clinical diagnostic laboratory services is subject to a clinical laboratory fee schedule that sets the maximum amount payable in each Medicare carrier's jurisdiction. This clinical laboratory fee schedule is updated annually. Laboratories bill the program directly for covered tests performed on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. State Medicaid programs are prohibited from paying more than the Medicare fee schedule limit for clinical laboratory services furnished to Medicaid recipients. Approximately 14.0% of the Company’s revenue is reimbursed under the Medicare clinical laboratory fee schedule.

Payment under the Medicare fee schedule has been limited from year to year by Congressional action, including imposition of national limitation amounts and freezes on the otherwise applicable annual Consumer Price Index ("CPI") updates. For most diagnostic lab tests, the national limitation is now 74.0% of the national median of all local fee schedules established for each test. Under a provision of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (“BIPA”), the cap is set at 100.0% of the median for tests performed after January 1, 2001 that the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines are new tests for which no limitation amount has previously been established.

Following a five year freeze on CPI updates to the clinical lab fee schedule, there was a 1.2% increase in the fee schedule in 2003. In late 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) again imposed a freeze in the CPI update of the clinical lab fee schedule from 2004 through 2008. The MMA freeze expired December 31, 2008. Pursuant to the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, the CPI update for labs for the years 2009 through 2013 would have been reduced by 0.5%. After such reduction, the 2009 CPI update to the clinical laboratory fee schedule was an increase of 4.5% and the 2010 CPI update was a reduction of 1.9%. The comprehensive health care reform legislation enacted in 2010, the ACA included numerous provisions that may fundamentally change the health care delivery system in the United States. Many of the most significant changes will not take effect until 2014, and their details will be shaped by regulatory efforts that have not yet been proposed. However, the ACA did include provisions that impose Medicare payment reductions on most health care providers, including clinical laboratories. Beginning in 2011, the annual CPI update to the lab fee schedule will be reduced by a “productivity adjustment” that is estimated to be 1.1% to 1.4% each year. In addition, the CPI update will be further reduced by 1.75% in each of 2011 through 2015.

When Medicare issued its final Physician Fee Schedule rule for 2011, it included a new requirement

that all requisitions for tests paid under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule include a physician or qualified non-physician practitioner's signature. Previously, such signatures were not required by Medicare on test requisitions. This new requirement does not apply to tests paid under the Medicare physician fee schedule, such as pathology services, or tests not separately billable. Although the rule was scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2011, CMS announced in December 2010 that because of concerns that some laboratories, physicians and other practitioners were not aware of the requirement or did not understand the new policy, CMS would focus their efforts during the first calendar quarter of 2011 on developing educational and outreach materials to educate those affected by the policy. CMS stated that once its first quarter educational efforts are fully underway, it will expect requisitions to be signed. CMS has recently indicated that it is reconsidering the signature requirement.

Separate from clinical laboratory services, which generally are reimbursed under the Medicare laboratory fee schedule, many pathology services are reimbursed under the Medicare physician fee schedule. The physician fee schedule assigns relative value units to each procedure or service, and a conversion factor is applied to calculate the reimbursement. The physician fee schedule is also subject to adjustment on an annual basis. The formula used to calculate the fee schedule conversion factor would have resulted in significant decreases in payment for most physician services for each year since 2003. However, since that time Congress has intervened repeatedly to prevent these payment reductions, and the conversion factor has been increased or frozen for the subsequent year. Decreases would continue in future years unless Congress acts to change the formula used to calculate the fee schedule or continues to mandate freezes or increases each year. In late 2008, Congress acted to provide a 1.1% increase in physician fee schedule payments in 2009. The calendar year 2010 update to the conversion factor for the physician fee schedule, based on the statutory formula, was a reduction of 21.2 %. To temporarily prevent this reduction to the physician fee schedule, an extension of the 2009 conversion factor through February 28, 2010 was included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 3326), which was passed on December 19, 2009. Most recently, Congress again took action to avert significant physician payment reductions in December 2010, and extended existing Medicare physician rates through the end of 2011. It is not clear when or how Congress will address this issue in the long term. If Congress does not continue to block payment reductions under the statutory formula, significant reductions in the physician fee schedule rates could have an adverse effect on the Company. Approximately 2.1% of the Company’s revenue is reimbursed under the physician fee schedule.

Because a significant portion of the Company's costs are relatively fixed, Medicare, Medicaid and other government program payment reductions could have a direct adverse effect on the Company's net earnings and cash flows. The Company cannot predict whether changes that will result in such reductions will be implemented.

Congressional action in 1997 required HHS to adopt uniform coverage, administration and payment policies for many of the most commonly performed lab tests using a negotiated rulemaking process. Consensus was reached by the negotiated rulemaking committee which, among other things, established uniform policies limiting Medicare coverage for certain tests to patients with specified medical conditions or diagnoses, and replacing local Medicare coverage policies which varied around the country. Since the final rules generally became effective in 2002, the use of uniform policies has improved the Company’s ability to obtain necessary billing information in some cases, but Medicare, Medicaid and private payer diagnosis code requirements continue to negatively impact the Company’s ability to be paid for some of the tests it performs. Due to the range of payers and policies, the extent of this impact continues to be difficult to quantify.

Future changes in federal, state and local laws and regulations (or in the interpretation of current regulations) affecting government payment for clinical laboratory testing could have a material adverse effect on the Company. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to predict what type of changes in legislation or regulations, if any, will occur.

Standard Electronic Transactions, Security and Confidentiality of Health Information

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") was designed to address issues related to the security and confidentiality of health insurance information. In an effort to improve

the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system by facilitating the electronic exchange of information in certain financial and administrative transactions, new regulations were promulgated to protect the privacy and security of certain information. These regulations apply to health plans, health care providers that conduct standard transactions electronically and health care clearinghouses (“covered entities”). Five such regulations have been finalized: (i) the Transactions and Code Sets Rule; (ii) the Privacy Rule; (iii) the Security Rule; (iv) the Standard Unique Employer Identifier Rule, which requires the use of a unique employer identifier in connection with certain electronic transactions; and (v) the National Provider Identifier Rule, which requires the use of a unique health care provider identifier in connection with certain electronic transactions.

The Company’s HIPAA project plan has three phases: (i) assessment of current systems, applications, processes and procedure testing and validation for HIPAA compliance; (ii) remediation of affected systems, applications, processes and procedure testing and validation for HIPAA compliance; and (iii) testing and validation.

The Privacy Rule regulates the use and disclosure of protected health information (“PHI”) by covered entities. It also sets forth certain rights that an individual has with respect to his or her PHI maintained by a covered entity, such as the right to access or amend certain records containing PHI or to request restrictions on the use or disclosure of PHI. The Privacy Rule requires covered entities to contractually bind third parties, known as business associates, in the event that they perform an activity or service for or on behalf of the covered entity that involves access to PHI. Additionally, it requires covered entities to implement certain administrative requirements, such as designating a privacy officer, drafting and implementing privacy policies and procedures, and training workforce members. The Company believes that it is in compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule in all material respects.

The Security Rule establishes requirements for safeguarding patient information that is electronically transmitted or electronically stored. Covered entities were required to be in compliance with the HIPAA Security Standard as of April 21, 2005. The rule establishes 42 implementation specifications, 20 of which are “required,” meaning they must be implemented as specified in the rule. Some of the Security Standards are technical in nature and are addressed through policies and procedures for using information systems. Twenty two of the specifications are “addressable” meaning that covered entities must assess whether each specification is a reasonable and appropriate safeguard within its environment for protection of electronic protected health information (ePHI) and implement if reasonable and appropriate or document why implementation would not be reasonable and appropriate. The Company believes that it is in compliance with the HIPAA Security Standards in all material respects.

The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with the current Transactions and Code Sets Rule. The Company is within the assessment and inventory phase to adopt Version 5010 Transactions and to adopt the ICD-10-CM Code Set issued by HHS on January 16, 2009. The compliance date for Version 5010 is January 1, 2012; the compliance date for ICD-10-CM is October 1, 2013. The Company will continue its assessment of computer systems, applications and processes for compliance with these requirements.

The federal Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act, which was enacted in February 2009, strengthens and expands the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and its restrictions on use and disclosure of PHI. HITECH includes, but is not limited to, prohibitions on exchanging patient identifiable health information for remuneration, restrictions on marketing to individuals and obligations to agree to provide individuals an accounting of virtually all disclosures of their health information. HITECH also fundamentally changes a business associate’s obligations by imposing a number of Privacy Rule requirements and a majority of Security Rule provisions directly on business associates that were previously only directly applicable to covered entities. Moreover, HITECH requires covered entities to provide notice to individuals, HHS, and, as applicable, the media when unsecured protected health information is breached, as that term is defined by HITECH. Business associates are similarly required to notify covered entities of a breach. Most of the HITECH provisions were effective February 17, 2010 and it is expected that HHS will issue regulations to clarify many of the new provisions. HHS has already issued regulations governing breach notification, which were effective in September 2009. The Company has revised its policies and procedures and our business associate agreements to comply with the new HITECH Act requirements.

The standard unique employer identifier regulations require that employers have standard national numbers that identify them on standard transactions. The Employer Identification Number also known as a Federal Tax Identification Number, issued by the Internal Revenue Service, was selected as the identifier for employers and was adopted effective July 30, 2002. The Company believes it is in compliance with these requirements.

The administrative simplification provisions of HIPAA mandate the adoption of standard unique identifiers for health care providers. The intent of these provisions is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the electronic transmission of health information. The National Provider Identification rule requires that all HIPAA-covered health care providers, whether they are individuals or organizations, must obtain a National Provider Identifier (“NPI”) for use to identify themselves in standard HIPAA transactions. NPI replaces the unique provider identification number - as well as other provider numbers previously assigned by payers and other entities - for the purpose of identifying providers in standard electronic transactions. The Company believes that it is in compliance with the HIPAA National Provider Identification Rule in all material respects.

The total cost associated with the requirements of HIPAA is not expected to be material to the Company’s operations or cash flows. There are, however, many unresolved issues in these areas and future interpretations of HIPAA and HITECH could impose significant costs on the Company.

In addition to the federal HIPAA regulations described above, there are a number of state laws regarding the confidentiality of medical information, some of which apply to clinical laboratories. These laws vary widely and new laws in this area are pending, but they most commonly restrict the use and disclosure of medical and financial information. In some cases, state laws are more restrictive than HIPAA and, therefore, are not preempted by HIPAA. Penalties for violation of these laws may include sanctions against a laboratory's licensure, as well as civil and/or criminal penalties. Violations of the HIPAA provisions after the applicable compliance dates could result in civil and/or criminal penalties, including significant fines and up to 10 years in prison. HITECH also significantly strengthened HIPAA enforcement. It increased the civil penalty amounts that may be imposed, required HHS to conduct periodic audits to confirm compliance and also authorized state attorneys general to bring civil actions seeking either injunctions or damages in response to violations of the HIPAA privacy and security regulations that threaten the privacy of state residents. Additionally, numerous other countries have or are developing similar laws governing the collection, use, disclosure and transmission of personal or patient information.

Fraud and Abuse Laws and Regulations

Existing federal laws governing federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, as well as similar state laws, impose a variety of broadly described fraud and abuse prohibitions on health care providers, including clinical laboratories. These laws are interpreted liberally and enforced aggressively by multiple government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, HHS’ Office of Inspector General ("OIG"), and various state agencies. Historically, the clinical laboratory industry has been the focus of major governmental enforcement initiatives. The federal government's enforcement efforts have been increasing over the past decade, in part as a result of the enactment of HIPAA, which included several provisions related to fraud and abuse enforcement, including the establishment of a program to coordinate and fund federal, state and local law enforcement efforts. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 also included new requirements directed at Medicaid fraud, including increased spending on enforcement and financial incentives for states to adopt false claims act provisions similar to the federal False Claims Act. Recent amendments to the False Claims Act, as well as other enhancements to the federal fraud and abuse laws enacted as part of the ACA, are widely expected to further increase fraud and abuse enforcement efforts.

The federal health care program’s anti-kickback law (the "Anti-Kickback Law") prohibits knowingly providing anything of value in return for, or to induce, the referral of Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care program business. Violations can result in imprisonment, fines, penalties, and/or exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. The OIG has published “safe harbor” regulations which specify certain arrangements that are protected from prosecution under the Anti-Kickback law if all conditions of the relevant safe harbor are met. Failure to fit within a safe harbor does not necessarily

constitute a violation of the Anti-Kickback Law; rather, the arrangement would be subject to scrutiny by regulators and prosecutors and would be evaluated on a case by case basis. Many states have their own Medicaid anti-kickback laws and several states also have anti-kickback laws that apply to all payers (i.e., not just government health care programs).

From time to time, the OIG issues alerts and other guidance on certain practices in the health care industry that implicate the Anti-Kickback Law or other federal fraud and abuse laws. Examples of such guidance documents particularly relevant to the Company and its operations follow.

In October 1994, the OIG issued a Special Fraud Alert on arrangements for the provision of clinical laboratory services. The Fraud Alert set forth a number of practices allegedly engaged in by some clinical laboratories and health care providers that raise issues under the federal fraud and abuse laws, including the Anti-Kickback Law. These practices include: (i) providing employees to furnish valuable services for physicians (other than collecting patient specimens for testing) that are typically the responsibility of the physicians’ staff; (ii) offering certain laboratory services at prices below fair market value in return for referrals of other tests which are billed to Medicare at higher rates; (iii) providing free testing to physicians’ managed care patients in situations where the referring physicians benefit from such reduced laboratory utilization; (iv) providing free pick-up and disposal of bio-hazardous waste for physicians for items unrelated to a laboratory’s testing services; (v) providing general-use facsimile machines or computers to physicians that are not exclusively used in connection with the laboratory services; and (vi) providing free testing for health care providers, their families and their employees (i.e., so-called “professional courtesy” testing). The OIG emphasized in the Special Fraud Alert that when one purpose of such arrangements is to induce referrals of program-reimbursed laboratory testing, both the clinical laboratory and the health care provider (e.g., physician) may be liable under the Anti-Kickback Law, and may be subject to criminal prosecution and exclusion from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Another issue the OIG has expressed concern about involves the provision of discounts on laboratory services billed to customers in return for the referral of federal health care program business. In a 1999 Advisory Opinion, the OIG concluded that a proposed arrangement whereby a laboratory would offer physicians significant discounts on non-federal health care program laboratory tests might violate the Anti-Kickback Law. The OIG reasoned that the laboratory could be viewed as providing such discounts to the physician in exchange for referrals by the physician of business to be billed by the laboratory to Medicare at non-discounted rates. The OIG indicated that the arrangement would not qualify for protection under the discount safe harbor to the Anti-Kickback Law because Medicare and Medicaid would not get the benefit of the discount. Similarly, in a 1999 correspondence, the OIG stated that if any direct or indirect link exists between a discount that a laboratory offers to a skilled nursing facility ("SNF") for tests covered under Medicare’s payments to the SNF and the referral of tests billable by the laboratory under Medicare Part B, then the Anti-Kickback Law would be implicated.

The OIG also has issued guidance regarding joint venture arrangements that may be viewed as suspect under the Anti-Kickback Law. These documents have relevance to clinical laboratories that are part of (or are considering establishing) joint ventures with potential sources of federal health care program business. The first guidance document, which focused on investor referrals to such ventures was issued in 1989 and another concerning contractual joint ventures was issued in April 2003. Some of the elements of joint ventures that the OIG identified as “suspect” include: arrangements in which the capital invested by the physicians is disproportionately small and the return on investment is disproportionately large when compared to a typical investment; specific selection of investors who are in a position to make referrals to the venture; and arrangements in which one of the parties to the joint venture expands into a line of business that is dependent on referrals from the other party (sometimes called "shell" joint ventures). In a 2004 advisory opinion, the OIG expressed concern about a proposed joint venture in which a laboratory company would assist physician groups in establishing off-site pathology laboratories. The OIG indicated that the physicians' financial and business risk in the venture was minimal and that the physicians would contract out substantially all laboratory operations, committing very little in the way of financial, capital, or human resources. The OIG was unable to exclude the possibility that the arrangement was designed to permit the laboratory to pay the physician groups for their referrals, and therefore was unwilling to find that the arrangement fell within a safe harbor or had sufficient safeguards to protect against fraud or abuse.

Violations of other fraud and abuse laws also can result in exclusion from participation in federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. One basis for such exclusion is an individual or entity’s submission of claims to Medicare or Medicaid that are substantially in excess of that individual or entity’s usual charges for like items or services. In 2003, the OIG issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would have defined the terms "usual charges" and “substantially in excess” in ways that might have required providers, including the Company, to either lower their charges to Medicare and Medicaid or increase charges to certain other payers to avoid the risk of exclusion. On June 18, 2007, however, the OIG withdrew the proposed rule, saying it preferred to continue evaluating billing patterns on a case-by-case basis. In its withdrawal notice, the OIG also said it “remains concerned about disparities in the amounts charged to Medicare and Medicaid when compared to private payers,” that it continues to believe its exclusion authority for excess charges “provides useful backstop protection for the public fisc,” and that it will continue to use “all tools available … to address instances where Medicare or Medicaid are charged substantially more than other payers.” Thus, although the OIG did not proceed with its rulemaking, an enforcement action under this statutory exclusion basis is possible and, if pursued, could have an adverse effect on the Company. The enforcement by Medicaid officials of similar state law restrictions also could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Under another federal statute, known as the "Stark Law” or "self-referral" prohibition, physicians who have an investment or compensation relationship with a clinical laboratory may not, unless an exception applies, refer Medicare patients for testing to the laboratory, regardless of the intent of the parties. Similarly, laboratories may not bill Medicare or any other party for services furnished pursuant to a prohibited self-referral. There are several Stark law exceptions that are relevant to arrangements involving clinical laboratories, including: 1) fair market value compensation for the provision of items or services; 2) payments by physicians to a laboratory for clinical laboratory services; 3) an exception for certain ancillary services (including laboratory services) provided within the referring physician's own office, if certain criteria are satisfied; 4) physician investment in a company whose stock is traded on a public exchange and has stockholder equity exceeding $75.0 million; and 5) certain space and equipment rental arrangements that are set at a fair market value rate and satisfy other requirements. All of the requirements of a Stark Law exception must be met to take advantage of the exception. Many states have their own self-referral laws as well, which in some cases apply to all patient referrals, not just Medicare.

There are a variety of other types of federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including laws prohibiting submission of false or fraudulent claims. The Company seeks to conduct its business in compliance with all federal and state fraud and abuse laws. The Company is unable to predict how these laws will be applied in the future, and no assurances can be given that its arrangements will not be subject to scrutiny under such laws. Sanctions for violations of these laws may include exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs, significant criminal and civil fines and penalties, and loss of licensure. Any exclusion from participation in a federal health care program, or any loss of licensure, arising from any action by any federal or state regulatory or enforcement authority, would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company's business. In addition, any significant criminal or civil penalty resulting from such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business.

Environmental, Health and Safety

The Company is subject to licensing and regulation under federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment and human health and safety and laws and regulations relating to the handling, transportation and disposal of medical specimens, infectious and hazardous waste and radioactive materials. All Company laboratories are subject to applicable federal and state laws and regulations relating to biohazard disposal of all laboratory specimens and the Company generally utilizes outside vendors for disposal of such specimens. In addition, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has established extensive requirements relating to workplace safety for health care employers, including clinical laboratories, whose workers may be exposed to blood-borne pathogens such as HIV and the hepatitis B virus. These regulations, among other things, require work practice controls, protective clothing and equipment, training, medical follow-up, vaccinations and other measures designed to minimize exposure to, and transmission of, blood-borne pathogens.

On November 6, 2000, Congress passed the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act, which required, among other things, that companies include in their safety programs the evaluation and use of engineering controls such as safety needles if found to be effective at reducing the risk of needlestick injuries in the workplace. The Company has implemented the use of safety needles at all of its service locations.

Although the Company is not aware of any current material non-compliance with such federal, state and local laws and regulations, failure to comply could subject the Company to denial of the right to conduct business, fines, criminal penalties and/or other enforcement actions.

Drug Testing

Drug testing for public sector employees is regulated by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (“SAMHSA”) (formerly the National Institute on Drug Abuse), which has established detailed performance and quality standards that laboratories must meet to be approved to perform drug testing on employees of federal government contractors and certain other entities. To the extent that the Company’s laboratories perform such testing, each must be certified as meeting SAMHSA standards. The Company’s Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; Raritan, New Jersey; Houston, Texas; Fort Myers, Florida; and Southaven, Mississippi laboratories are SAMHSA certified.

Controlled Substances

The use of controlled substances in testing for drugs of abuse is regulated by the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

Compliance Program

The Company maintains a comprehensive, company-wide compliance program. The Company continuously evaluates and monitors its compliance with all Medicare, Medicaid and other rules and regulations. The objective of the Company’s compliance program is to develop, implement, and update compliance safeguards as necessary. Emphasis is placed on developing compliance policies and guidelines, personnel training programs and various monitoring and audit procedures to attempt to achieve implementation of all applicable rules and regulations.

The Company seeks to conduct its business in compliance with all statutes, regulations, and other requirements applicable to its clinical laboratory operations. The clinical laboratory testing industry is, however, subject to extensive regulation, and many of these statutes and regulations have not been interpreted by the courts. There can be no assurance that applicable statutes and regulations will not be interpreted or applied by a prosecutorial, regulatory or judicial authority in a manner that would adversely effect the Company. Potential sanctions for violation of these statutes and regulations include significant fines and the loss of various licenses, certificates, and authorizations, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Risks Associated with the Company’s Business

Changes in federal, state, local and third-party payer regulations or policies (or in the interpretation of current regulations or policies), insurance regulation or approvals or changes in other laws, regulations or policies may adversely affect governmental and third-party coverage and reimbursement for clinical laboratory testing and may have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s business.

Government payers, such as Medicare and Medicaid, as well as insurers, including MCOs, have increased their efforts to control the cost, utilization and delivery of health care services. From time to time, Congress has considered and implemented changes in the Medicare fee schedules in conjunction with budgetary legislation. Further reductions of reimbursement for Medicare services or changes in policy regarding coverage of tests or other requirements for payment, such as a physician or qualified practitioner’s signature on test requisitions, may be implemented from time to time. Reimbursement for the pathology services component of the Company’s business is also subject to statutory and regulatory reduction. Reductions in the reimbursement rates of other third-party payers may occur as well. Such changes in the past have resulted in reduced prices as well as added costs and have decreased test utilization for the clinical laboratory industry by adding more complex new regulatory and administrative requirements. Further changes in federal, state, local and third-party payer regulations or policies may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business. Actions by agencies regulating insurance or changes in other laws, regulations, or policies may also have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s business.

The Company could face significant monetary damages and penalties and/or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs if it violates health care anti-fraud and abuse laws.

The Company is subject to extensive government regulation at the federal, state and local levels. The Company’s failure to meet governmental requirements under these regulations, including those relating to billing practices and financial relationships with physicians and hospitals, could lead to civil and criminal penalties, exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid and possible prohibitions or restrictions on the use of its laboratories. While the Company believes that it meets all statutory and regulatory requirements, there is a risk that government authorities might take a contrary position. Such occurrences, regardless of their outcome, could damage the Company’s reputation and adversely affect important business relationships it has with third parties.

The Company’s business could be harmed from the loss or suspension of a license or imposition of a fine or penalties under, or future changes in, or interpretations of, the law or regulations of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1967, and the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 or those of Medicare, Medicaid or other federal, state or local agencies.

The clinical laboratory testing industry is subject to extensive regulation, and many of these statutes and regulations have not been interpreted by the courts. CLIA extends federal oversight to virtually all clinical laboratories by requiring that they be certified by the federal government or by a federally-approved accreditation agency. The sanction for failure to comply with CLIA requirements may be suspension, revocation or limitation of a laboratory’s CLIA certificate, which is necessary to conduct business, as well as significant fines and/or criminal penalties. In addition, the Company is subject to regulation under state law. State laws may require that laboratories and/or laboratory personnel meet certain qualifications, specify certain quality controls or require maintenance of certain records.

The Company cannot assure that applicable statutes and regulations will not be interpreted or applied by a prosecutorial, regulatory or judicial authority in a manner that would adversely affect its business. Potential sanctions for violation of these statutes and regulations include significant fines and the suspension or loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. In addition, compliance with future legislation could impose additional requirements on the Company which may be costly.

Failure to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act and the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act, could result in fines and penalties and loss of licensure, and have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s business.

The Company is subject to licensing and regulation under federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment and human health and safety, including laws and regulations relating to the handling, transportation and disposal of medical specimens, infectious and hazardous waste and radioactive materials, as well as regulations relating to the safety and health of laboratory employees. All of the Company’s laboratories are subject to applicable federal and state laws and regulations relating to biohazard disposal of all laboratory specimens, and they utilize outside vendors for disposal of such specimens. In addition, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established extensive requirements relating to workplace safety for health care employers, including clinical laboratories, whose workers may be exposed to blood-borne pathogens such as HIV and the hepatitis B virus. These requirements, among other things, require work practice controls, protective clothing and equipment, training, medical follow-up, vaccinations and other measures designed to minimize exposure to, and transmission of, blood-borne pathogens. In addition, the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act requires, among other things, that the Company include in its safety programs the evaluation and use of engineering controls such as safety needles if found to be effective at reducing the risk of needlestick injuries in the workplace.

Failure to comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations could subject the Company to denial of the right to conduct business, fines, criminal penalties and/or other enforcement actions which would have a material adverse effect on its business. In addition, compliance with future legislation could impose additional requirements on the Company which may be costly.

Regulations requiring the use of “standard transactions” for health care services issued under HIPAA may negatively impact the Company’s profitability and cash flows.

Pursuant to HIPAA, the Secretary of HHS has issued regulations designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system by facilitating the electronic exchange of information in certain financial and administrative transactions while protecting the privacy and security of the information exchanged.

The HIPAA transaction standards are complex, and subject to differences in interpretation by payers. For instance, some payers may interpret the standards to require the Company to provide certain types of information, including demographic information not usually provided to the Company by physicians. As a result of inconsistent application of transaction standards by payers or the Company’s inability to obtain certain billing information not usually provided to the Company by physicians, the Company could face increased costs and complexity, a temporary disruption in receipts and ongoing reductions in reimbursements and net revenues. In addition, new requirements for additional standard transactions, such as claims attachments, Version 5010 of the HIPAA Transaction Standards and the ICD-10-CM Code Set, could prove technically difficult, time-consuming or expensive to implement. The Company is working closely with its payers to establish acceptable protocols for claim submission and with its trade association and an industry coalition to present issues and problems as they arise to the appropriate regulators and standards setting organizations.

Failure to maintain the security of customer-related information or compliance with security requirements could damage the Company’s reputation with customers, cause it to incur substantial additional costs and become subject to litigation.

The Company receives certain personal and financial information about its customers. In addition, the Company depends upon the secure transmission of confidential information over public networks, including information permitting cashless payments. A compromise in the Company’s security systems that results in customer personal information being obtained by unauthorized persons or the Company’s failure to comply with security requirements for financial transactions could adversely affect the Company’s reputation with its customers and others, as well as the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. It could also result in litigation against the Company or the imposition

of penalties.

Failure of the Company, third party payers or physicians to comply with Version 5010 Transactions or the ICD-10-CM Code Set could adversely impact the Company’s reimbursement.

The Company is within the assessment and inventory phase to adopt Version 5010 Transactions and to adopt the ICD-10-CM Code Set issued by HHS on January 16, 2009. The compliance date for Version 5010 is January 1, 2012; the compliance date for ICD-10-CM Code Set is October 1, 2013. The Company will continue its assessment of information systems, applications and processes for compliance with these requirements. Clinical laboratories are typically required to submit health care claims with diagnosis codes to third party payers. The diagnosis codes must be obtained from the ordering physician. The failure of the Company, third party payers or physicians to transition within the required timeframe could have an adverse impact on reimbursement, days sales outstanding and cash collections.

Compliance with the HIPAA security regulations and privacy regulations may increase the Company’s costs.

The HIPAA privacy and security regulations, including the expanded requirements under HITECH, establish comprehensive federal standards with respect to the uses and disclosures of protected health information by health plans, healthcare providers and healthcare clearinghouses, in addition to setting standards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of protected health information. The regulations establish a complex regulatory framework on a variety of subjects, including:

•

the circumstances under which uses and disclosures of protected health information are permitted or required without a specific authorization by the patient, including but not limited to treatment purposes, activities to obtain payments for the Company’s services, and its healthcare operations activities;

•

a patient’s rights to access, amend and receive an accounting of certain disclosures of protected health information;

•

the content of notices of privacy practices for protected health information;

•

administrative, technical and physical safeguards required of entities that use or receive protected health information; and

•

the protection of computing systems maintaining ePHI.

The Company has implemented policies and procedures related to compliance with the HIPAA privacy and security regulations, as required by law. The privacy and security regulations establish a “floor” and do not supersede state laws that are more stringent. Therefore, the Company is required to comply with both federal privacy and security regulations and varying state privacy and security laws. In addition, for healthcare data transfers from other countries relating to citizens of those countries, the Company must comply with the laws of those other countries. The federal privacy regulations restrict the Company’s ability to use or disclose patient identifiable laboratory data, without patient authorization, for purposes other than payment, treatment or healthcare operations (as defined by HIPAA), except for disclosures for various public policy purposes and other permitted purposes outlined in the privacy regulations. HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, provides for significant fines and other penalties for wrongful use or disclosure of protected health information in violation of the privacy and security regulations, including potential civil and criminal fines and penalties. Due to the recent enactment of HITECH, it is not possible to predict what the extent of the impact on business will be; however, if the Company does not comply with existing or new laws and regulations related to protecting the privacy and security of health information it could be subject to monetary fines, civil penalties or criminal sanctions. In addition, other federal and state laws that protect the privacy and security of patient information may be subject to enforcement and interpretations by various governmental authorities and courts resulting in complex compliance issues. For example, the Company could incur damages under state laws pursuant to an action brought by a private party for the wrongful use or disclosure of confidential health information or other private personal information.

HITECH may impose additional obligations on health care entities with respect to data privacy and security. The Company is unable to predict the extent to which these new obligations may prove technically difficult, time-consuming or expensive to implement.

Increased competition, including price competition, could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s net revenues and profitability.

The clinical laboratory business is intensely competitive both in terms of price and service. Pricing of laboratory testing services is often one of the most significant factors used by health care providers and third-party payers in selecting a laboratory. As a result of the clinical laboratory industry undergoing significant consolidation, larger clinical laboratory providers are able to increase cost efficiencies afforded by large-scale automated testing. This consolidation results in greater price competition. The Company may be unable to increase cost efficiencies sufficiently, if at all, and as a result, its net earnings and cash flows could be negatively impacted by such price competition. The Company may also face increased competition from companies that do not comply with existing laws or regulations or otherwise disregard compliance standards in the industry. Additionally, the Company may also face changes in fee schedules, competitive bidding for laboratory services or other actions or pressures reducing payment schedules as a result of increased or additional competition.

Additional competition, including price competition, could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s net revenues and profitability.

Discontinuation or recalls of existing testing products; failure to develop, or acquire, licenses for new or improved testing technologies; or the Company’s customers using new technologies to perform their own tests could adversely affect the Company’s business.

From time to time, manufacturers discontinue or recall reagents, test kits or instruments used by the Company to perform laboratory testing. Such discontinuations or recalls could adversely affect the Company’s costs, testing volume and revenue.

The clinical laboratory industry is subject to changing technology and new product introductions. The Company’s success in maintaining a leadership position in genomic and other advanced testing technologies will depend, in part, on its ability to develop, acquire or license new and improved technologies on favorable terms and to obtain appropriate coverage and reimbursement for these technologies. The Company may not be able to negotiate acceptable licensing arrangements and it cannot be certain that such arrangements will yield commercially successful diagnostic tests. If the Company is unable to license these testing methods at competitive rates, its research and development costs may increase as a result. In addition, if the Company is unable to license new or improved technologies to expand its esoteric testing operations, its testing methods may become outdated when compared with the Company’s competition and testing volume and revenue may be materially and adversely affected.

In addition, advances in technology may lead to the development of more cost-effective technologies such as point-of-care testing equipment that can be operated by physicians or other healthcare providers in their offices or by patients themselves without requiring the services of freestanding clinical laboratories. Development of such technology and its use by the Company’s customers could reduce the demand for its laboratory testing services and negatively impact its revenues.

Currently, most clinical laboratory testing is categorized as “high” or “moderate” complexity, and thereby is subject to extensive and costly regulation under CLIA. The cost of compliance with CLIA makes it impractical for most physicians to operate clinical laboratories in their offices, and other laws limit the ability of physicians to have ownership in a laboratory and to refer tests to such a laboratory. Manufacturers of laboratory equipment and test kits could seek to increase their sales by marketing point-of-care laboratory equipment to physicians and by selling test kits approved for home or physician office use to both physicians and patients. Diagnostic tests approved for home use are automatically deemed to be “waived” tests under CLIA and may be performed in physician office laboratories as well as by patients in their homes with minimal regulatory oversight. Other tests meeting certain FDA criteria also may be classified as “waived” for CLIA purposes. The FDA has regulatory responsibility over instruments, test kits, reagents and other devices used by clinical laboratories and has taken responsibility

from the Centers for Disease Control for classifying the complexity of tests for CLIA purposes. Increased approval of “waived” test kits could lead to increased testing by physicians in their offices or by patients at home, which could affect the Company’s market for laboratory testing services and negatively impact its revenues.

Health care reform changes in government payment and reimbursement systems, or changes in payer mix, including an increase in capitated reimbursement mechanisms or new national or network managed care purchasing models, could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s net revenues and profitability.

Testing services are billed to private patients, Medicare, Medicaid, commercial clients, MCOs and other insurance companies. Tests ordered by a physician may be billed to different payers depending on the medical insurance benefits of a particular patient. Most testing services are billed to a party other than the physician or other authorized person that ordered the test. Increases in the percentage of services billed to government and managed care payers could have an adverse impact on the Company’s net revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2010, requisitions (based on the total volume of requisitions excluding the Ontario, Canada joint venture) by payer were:

•

private patients – 1.9%

•

Medicare and Medicaid – 18.1%,

•

commercial clients – 31.1% and

•

managed care – 48.9%.

MCOs have different contracting philosophies. Some MCOs contract with a limited number of clinical laboratories and negotiate fees charged by such laboratories. Other MCOs allow any willing provider to be contracted at specified rates. The majority of the Company’s managed care testing is negotiated on a fee-for-service basis at a discount from its patient prices. Such discounts have historically resulted in price erosion and have negatively impacted the Company’s operating margins. In addition, MCOs have used capitated payment contracts in an attempt to fix the cost of laboratory testing services for their enrollees. Under a capitated payment contract, the clinical laboratory and MCO agree to a per member, per month payment to cover all laboratory tests during the month, regardless of the number or cost of the tests actually performed. Such contracts shift the risk of increased test utilization to the clinical laboratory. For the year ended December 31, 2010, capitated contracts accounted for approximately $155.1 million, or 3.1%, of the Company’s net sales.

A portion of the managed care fee-for-service revenues are collectible from patients in the form of deductibles, copayments and coinsurance. As patient cost-sharing increases, collectibility may be impacted.

Recently, certain managed care companies have adopted or expressed interest in adopting new national or laboratory network purchasing models. If the Company is unable to participate in these new models, or if the Company loses a material contract, it could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s net revenues and profitability.

In addition, Medicare and Medicaid and private insurers have increased their efforts to control the cost, utilization and delivery of health care services, including clinical laboratory services. Measures to regulate health care delivery in general, and clinical laboratories in particular, have resulted in reduced prices, added costs and decreased test utilization for the clinical laboratory industry by increasing complexity and adding new regulatory and administrative requirements. Pursuant to legislation passed in late 2003, the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare managed care plans has increased. Implementation of the ACA, the health care reform legislation passed last year, also may affect coverage, reimbursement, and utilization of laboratory services, as well as administrative requirements.

The Company expects efforts to impose reduced reimbursement and more stringent cost controls by government and other payers to continue. If the Company cannot offset additional reductions in the payments it receives for its services by reducing costs, increasing test volume and/or introducing new procedures, it could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s net revenues and profitability.

As an employer, health care reform legislation also contains numerous regulations that will require the Company to implement significant process and record keeping changes to be in compliance. These changes increase the cost of providing healthcare coverage to employees and their families. Given the uncertainty of the evolving legislation, lack of clarity on the status of reforms, and limited release of regulations to guide compliance, the exact impact to employers including the Company is uncertain.

A failure to obtain and retain new customers and alliance partners, a loss of existing customers or material contracts, or a reduction in tests ordered or specimens submitted by existing customers, could impact the Company’s ability to successfully grow its business.

To offset efforts by payers to reduce the cost and utilization of clinical laboratory services, the Company needs to obtain and retain new customers and alliance partners. In addition, a reduction in tests ordered or specimens submitted by existing customers, without offsetting growth in its customer base, could impact the Company’s ability to successfully grow its business and could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s net revenues and profitability. The Company competes primarily on the basis of the quality of testing, reporting and information systems, reputation in the medical community, the pricing of services and ability to employ qualified personnel. The Company’s failure to successfully compete on any of these factors could result in the loss of customers and a reduction in the Company’s ability to expand its customer base.

In addition, the Company relies on developing alliances with hospitals to expand its business through appropriate collaborative agreements. The Company’s ability to expand the number of alliances with hospitals and maintain current alliances, many of which are terminable on short notice, could impact its ability to successfully grow its business.

The Company may fail to realize the anticipated revenue growth expected from the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics, which could adversely affect its operating results and the market price of its common stock.

The success of the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics will depend, in significant part, on the Company’s ability to successfully integrate the acquired business and realize the anticipated benefits to be derived from incorporating Genzyme Genetics into its operations. The Company believes that the acquisition will provide an opportunity for revenue growth in the areas of esoteric testing and personalized medicine. Actual revenue growth, if achieved at all, may be lower than the Company expects and may take longer to achieve than anticipated. If the Company is not able to achieve the anticipated benefits of the acquisition, the value of its common stock may be adversely affected.

The integration of the acquired assets of Genzyme Genetics will be complex and involve a number of risks, and failure to successfully integrate the respective operations could significantly harm the Company’s business and results of operations.

Because of the structure of the transaction, as an asset carve out from Genzyme Corporation, the Company will not be integrating a stand-alone enterprise with the back-office systems and processes to support the operation of the business. The Company is currently relying upon Genzyme Corporation to provide critical business support services for a transition period and will ultimately have to transfer these activities to internal or third party resources and/or acquire new resources and increase its organizational capacity. Relying upon Genzyme Corporation to perform critical operations and services during this transition period raises a number of significant business and operational risks and there is no assurance that the transition services provided by Genzyme Corporation will be efficient or effective. As a result, integrating the operations of Genzyme Genetics will be complex and there is no assurance that the Company will not encounter material delays or unanticipated costs that could adversely affect its business and results of operations. Successful integration involves numerous risks, including:

·	Maintaining and transitioning relationships with key payers and other customers;
·	Retaining and attracting customers following a period of significant uncertainty associated with the acquired business;
·	Diversion of management attention from business and operational matters;
·	Integrating accounting, information technology, enterprise management and administrative systems which may be difficult or costly;
·	Making significant cash expenditures that may be required to retain personnel or eliminate unnecessary resources; and
·	Maintaining uniform standards, procedures and policies to ensure efficient and compliant administration of the organization.

The Company could also encounter unanticipated or additional integration-related costs or fail to realize all of the benefits of the acquisition that are included in the Company’s financial model and that drive expectations for future growth and profitability.

A failure to integrate newly acquired businesses and the costs related to such integration could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s net revenues and profitability.

The successful integration of any business that the Company may acquire entails numerous risks, including, among others:

•

issues related to revenue recognition and/or cash collections;

•

loss of key customers or employees;

•

difficulty in consolidating redundant facilities and infrastructure and in standardizing information and other systems;

•

failure to maintain the quality of services that such companies have historically provided;

•

coordination of geographically-separated facilities and workforces; and

•

diversion of management’s attention from the day-to-day business of the Company.

The Company cannot assure that current or future acquisitions, if any, or any related integration efforts will be successful, or that the Company’s business will not be adversely affected by any future acquisitions. Even if the Company is able to successfully integrate the operations of companies or businesses that it may acquire in the future, the Company may not be able to realize the benefits that it expects to result from such integration, including projected cost savings.

Adverse results in material litigation matters could have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s business.

The Company may become subject in the ordinary course of business to material legal action related to, among other things, intellectual property disputes, professional liability and employee-related matters, as well as inquiries from governmental agencies and Medicare or Medicaid carriers requesting comment on allegations of billing irregularities that are brought to their attention through billing audits or third parties. Legal actions could result in substantial monetary damages as well as damage to the Company’s reputation with customers, which could have a material adverse effect upon its business.

An inability to attract and retain experienced and qualified personnel could adversely affect the Company’s business.

The loss of key management personnel or the inability to attract and retain experienced and qualified employees at the Company’s clinical laboratories and research centers could adversely affect the business. The success of the Company is dependent in part on the efforts of key members of its management team. Success in maintaining the Company’s leadership position in genomic and other advanced testing technologies will depend in part on the Company’s ability to attract and retain skilled research professionals. In addition, the success of the Company’s clinical laboratories also depends on employing and retaining qualified and experienced laboratory professionals, including specialists, who perform clinical laboratory testing services. In the future, if competition for the services of these professionals increases, the Company may not be able to continue to attract and retain individuals in its markets. The Company’s revenues and earnings could be adversely affected if a significant number of professionals terminate their relationship with the Company or become unable or unwilling to continue their employment.

A significant increase in the Company’s days sales outstanding could increase bad debt expense and have an adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Billing for laboratory services is a complex process. Laboratories bill many different payers including doctors, patients, hundreds of insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid and employer groups, all of which have different billing requirements. In addition to billing complexities, the Company is experiencing more billing to patients as a result of the growth in billings to managed care fee-for-service plans which have patient copayments, coinsurance and deductibles and an increase in high deductible health plans. With these high deductible health plans, the patient is responsible for more payments prior to insurance covering the cost of care. A material change in the Company’s days sales outstanding level (“DSO”) resulting in an increase in the Company’s bad debt expense and DSO could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Failure in the Company’s information technology systems could significantly increase testing turn-around time or billing processes and otherwise disrupt the Company’s operations.

The Company’s laboratory operations depend, in part, on the continued performance of its information technology systems. Despite network security measures and other precautions the Company has taken, its information technology systems are potentially vulnerable to physical or electronic break-ins, computer viruses and similar disruptions. In addition, the Company is in the process of integrating the information technology systems of its recently acquired subsidiaries, and the Company may experience system failures or interruptions as a result of this process. Sustained system failures or interruption of the Company’s systems in one or more of its laboratory operations could disrupt the Company’s ability to process laboratory requisitions, perform testing, provide test results in a timely manner and/or bill the appropriate party. Failure of the Company’s information technology systems could adversely affect the Company’s business, profitability and financial condition.

Operations may be disrupted and adversely impacted by the effects of natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes, or acts of terrorism, or other criminal activities, or disease pandemics.

The Company’s operations may be adversely impacted by the effects of natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards and floods, or acts of terrorism or other criminal activities or disease pandemics. Such events may result in a temporary decline in the number of patients who seek laboratory testing services. In addition, such events may temporarily interrupt the Company’s ability to transport specimens, the Company’s information technology systems, the Company’s ability to utilize certain laboratories, and/or the Company’s ability to receive material from its suppliers.

Reimbursement for services may be adversely impacted due to the failure of the Company or covered health plans to satisfy HIPAA standard transaction and code set requirements, including NPI.

The Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA have required the Department of Health and Human Services to establish national standards for electronic health care transactions and NPI. CMS requires the NPI on Part B professional claims after March 1, 2008. The failure of the Company or third parties to meet the NPI requirements for Medicare claims or other covered health plans could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s reimbursement and profitability.

A significant deterioration in the economy could negatively impact testing volumes, cash collections and the availability of credit.

The Company’s operations are dependent upon ongoing demand for diagnostic testing services by patients, physicians, hospitals, MCOs, and others. A significant downturn in the economy could negatively impact the demand for diagnostic testing as well as the ability of patients and other payers to pay for services ordered. In addition, uncertainty in the credit markets could reduce the availability of credit and impact the Company’s ability to meet its financing needs in the future.

Changes in reimbursement by foreign governments and foreign currency exchange fluctuations could have an adverse impact on the Company’s business.

The Company has business and operations outside the United States. Changes by foreign governments in reimbursement for the Company’s services and foreign currency fluctuations could have an adverse impact on the Company’s business.

Item 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None

Item 2. PROPERTIES

The Company operates through a national network of primary laboratories, branches, PSCs and STAT laboratories. The table below summarizes certain information as to the Company’s principal operating and administrative facilities as of December 31, 2010.

		Nature of
Location		Occupancy
Primary Laboratories:
Birmingham, Alabama		Leased
Phoenix, Arizona		Leased
Calabasas, California		Leased
Irvine, California		Leased
Los Angeles, California		Leased
Monrovia, California		Leased
Orange, California		Leased
San Diego, California		Leased
San Francisco, California		Leased
Santa Ana, California		Leased
Aurora, Colorado		Leased
Denver, Colorado		Leased
Shelton, Connecticut		Leased
Waltham, Connecticut		Leased
Ft. Myers, Florida		Owned
Tampa, Florida		Leased
Temple Terrace, Florida		Leased
Chicago, Illinois		Leased
Indianapolis, Indiana		Leased
Westborough, Massachusetts		Leased
Eden Prairie, Minnesota		Leased
Southaven, Mississippi		Owned
Kansas City, Missouri		Owned
Cranford, New Jersey		Leased
Raritan, New Jersey		Owned
Santa Fe, New Mexico		Owned
New Hartford, New York		Leased
New York, New York		Leased
Burlington, North Carolina		Owned
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina		Leased
Dublin, Ohio		Owned
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma		Leased
Brentwood, Tennessee		Leased
Knoxville, Tennessee		Leased
Austin, Texas		Leased
Dallas, Texas		Leased
Houston, Texas		Leased
San Antonio, Texas		Leased
Salt Lake City, Utah		Leased
Seattle, Washington		Leased
Milwaukee, Wisconsin		Leased
Charleston, West Virginia		Leased
Mechelen, Belgium		Leased
Edmonton, Canada		Leased
Ontario, Canada		Owned

Corporate Headquarters Facilities:
Burlington, North Carolina		Owned
Burlington, North Carolina		Leased

All of the Company’s primary laboratory facilities have been built or improved for the single purpose of providing clinical laboratory testing services. The Company believes that these facilities are suitable and adequate and have sufficient production capacity for its currently foreseeable level of operations. The Company believes that if it were unable to renew a lease or if a lease were to be terminated on any of the facilities it presently leases, it could find alternate space at competitive market rates and readily relocate its operations to such new locations without material disruption to its operations.

Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company was a party in a patent case originally filed by Competitive Technologies, Inc. and Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment against the Company for patent infringement, with total damages and attorney’s fees payable by the Company of approximately $7.8 million. The underlying judgment has been paid. The Company vigorously contested the judgment and appealed the case ultimately to the United States Supreme Court. On June 22, 2006, the Supreme Court dismissed the Company’s appeal and the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings including resolution of a related declaratory judgment action initiated by the Company addressing the plaintiffs’ claims for post trial damages. On August 15, 2008, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the Company on all of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit transferred the appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and oral argument was heard on November 17, 2010. On February 2, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court judgment in favor of the Company.

A subsidiary of the Company, DIANON Systems, Inc. (“DIANON”), is the appellant in a wrongful termination lawsuit originally filed by G. Berry Schumann in Superior Court in the State of Connecticut. After a jury trial, the state court entered judgment against DIANON, with total damages, attorney’s fees, and pre-judgment interest payable by DIANON, of approximately $10.0 million. DIANON filed a notice of appeal in December 2009, and the case has been transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court. DIANON has disputed liability and intends to contest the case vigorously on appeal.

As previously reported on May 22, 2006, the Company received a subpoena from the California Attorney General seeking documents related to billing to the state’s Medicaid program. During the third quarter of 2008, the Company received a request from the California Attorney General for additional information. On March 20, 2009, a qui tam lawsuit, California ex rel. Hunter Laboratories, LLC et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al., which was joined by the California Attorney General and to which the previous subpoena related, was unsealed. The lawsuit was brought against the Company and several other major laboratories operating in California and alleges that the defendants improperly billed the state Medicaid program and, therefore, violated the California False Claims Act. The lawsuit seeks actual and treble damages and civil penalties for each alleged false claim, as well as recovery of costs, attorney’s fees, and expenses. The original complaint was dismissed on the basis of (i) misjoinder and (ii) lack of particularity in the claims and a separate amended complaint was filed against the Company on December 14, 2009. The Company filed an answer to the new complaint on February 5, 2010. The Company participated in mediation on December 6, 2010 and February 10, 2011. The case is currently scheduled for trial on January 30, 2012.

During the third quarter of 2010, the Company responded to an audit from the California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) of one of the Company’s California laboratories for the period of January 1, 2010 through June 30, 2010. DHCS subsequently indicated that this laboratory charged the Medi-Cal program more than what was charged to other payers for some lab services and that this is inconsistent with DHCS’s current interpretation of California regulations. DHCS provided the Company with a proposed agreement related to the Company’s billing to the Medi-Cal program, including a requirement that the Company charge Medi-Cal the “lowest price” it charges others for a particular laboratory test. The Company disagrees with DHCS’ contentions and interpretation of its regulations and believes that it has properly charged the Medi-Cal program under all applicable laws and regulations. The Company has subsequently received a self-audit letter and a similar audit request relating to another Company laboratory. The Company is continuing to cooperate with DHCS with respect to the audits.

In addition, the Company has received three other subpoenas since 2007 related to Medicaid billing. In June 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Florida requesting documents related to its billing to Florida Medicaid. In February 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the Commonwealth of Virginia seeking documents related to the Company’s billing for state Medicaid. In October 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the State of Michigan seeking documents related to its billing to Michigan Medicaid. The Company also responded to an October 2007 subpoena from the United States Office of Inspector General’s regional office in New York and a September 2009 subpoena from the United States Office of Inspector General’s regional office in Massachusetts regarding certain of its billing practices. The Company is cooperating with the requests.

On August 19, 2010, Aetna, Inc., Aetna Health Holdings, LLC and Aetna Health Management, LLC filed a lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging unfair competition, misrepresentation, interference and breach of contract, and violation of trade secret laws. Aetna is seeking unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

The Company acquired certain assets of Westcliff Medical Laboratories (“Westcliff”) on June 16, 2010. On June 25, 2010, the Company and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) entered into a letter agreement (“Agreement”) whereby the Company agreed to hold the Westcliff business separate and independent of the Company from the date the Company acquired the Westcliff assets until the Agreement was set to terminate on December 3, 2010. The Company subsequently responded to a subpoena and Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC regarding the acquisition. On December 1, 2010, the FTC issued an administrative complaint challenging the Westcliff acquisition (“Administrative Proceeding”). A hearing in the Administrative Proceeding before an FTC administrative law judge is scheduled to begin on May 2, 2011, in Washington, DC and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in that proceeding. On December 1, 2010, the FTC also filed an action in federal court in the District of Columbia seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the Company from integrating the Westcliff assets upon the expiration of the Agreement. The Company successfully moved for transfer of the federal district court matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and the Company voluntarily agreed to extend the Agreement until the federal district court ruled on the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction. On February 22, 2011 the federal district court denied the preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order, allowing the Company to integrate the Westcliff assets into its business operations. On February 23, 2011 the FTC filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a motion with the federal district court requesting a preliminary injunction maintaining the Agreement pending a decision from that appeal. The Company will vigorously defend itself in those proceedings.

Several of these matters are in their early stages of development and management cannot predict the outcome of such matters. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of such matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company but may be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in the period in which such matters are finally determined or resolved.

The Company is involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation, arising in the ordinary course of business. Some of these actions involve claims that are substantial in amount. These matters include, but are not limited to, intellectual property disputes, professional liability, employee related matters, and inquiries, including subpoenas and other civil investigative demands, from governmental agencies and Medicare or Medicaid payers and managed care payers reviewing billing practices or requesting comment on allegations of billing irregularities that are brought to their attention through billing audits or third parties. The Company receives civil investigative demands or other inquiries from various governmental bodies in the ordinary course of its business. Such inquiries can relate to the Company or other healthcare providers. The Company works cooperatively to respond to appropriate requests for information.

The Company is also named from time to time in suits brought under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and comparable state laws. These suits typically allege that the Company has made false statements and/or certifications in connection with claims for payment from federal or state health care programs. They may remain under seal (hence, unknown to the Company) for some time while the

government decides whether to intervene on behalf of the qui tam plaintiff. Such claims are an inevitable part of doing business in the health care field today.

The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all statutes, regulations and other requirements applicable to its clinical laboratory operations. The clinical laboratory testing industry is, however, subject to extensive regulation, and the courts have not interpreted many of these statutes and regulations. There can be no assurance therefore that those applicable statutes and regulations will not be interpreted or applied by a prosecutorial, regulatory or judicial authority in a manner that would adversely affect the Company. Potential sanctions for violation of these statutes and regulations include significant fines and the loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations.

Item 4. (REMOVED AND RESERVED)

PART II

Item 5.

MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Market Information

The Common Stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “LH”. The following table sets forth for the calendar periods indicated the high and low sales prices for the Common Stock reported on the NYSE Composite Tape.

	High		Low
Year Ended December 31, 2009
First Quarter		65.90		53.25
Second Quarter		68.09		57.08
Third Quarter		71.29		62.06
Fourth Quarter		76.74		63.81
Year Ended December 31, 2010
First Quarter		77.09		69.49
Second Quarter		83.00		73.12
Third Quarter		78.94		71.58
Fourth Quarter		89.48		75.75

Holders

On February 18, 2011 there were 401 holders of record of the Common Stock.

Dividends

The Company has not historically paid dividends on its common stock and does not presently anticipate paying any dividends on its common stock in the foreseeable future. In addition, the Company’s senior credit facilities place certain limits on the payment of dividends. For further information on these limits, please refer to “Financing Activities” under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Note 11 to Consolidated Financial Statements.”

Common Stock Performance

The Company’s common stock is traded on the NYSE. The graph below shows the cumulative total return assuming an investment of $100 on December 30, 2005 in each of the Company’s common stock, the Standard & Poor’s (the “S&P”) Composite-500 Stock Index and the S&P 400 Health Care Index (the “Peer Group”) and assuming that all dividends were reinvested.

Comparison of Five Year Cumulative Total Return

		12/2005		12/2006		12/2007		12/2008		12/2009		12/2010
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings	$	100	$	136	$	140	$	120	$	139	$	163
S&P 500 Index	$	100	$	116	$	122	$	77	$	97	$	112
S&P 400 Health Care Index	$	100	$	99	$	112	$	75	$	101	$	124

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The following table sets forth information with respect to purchases of shares of the Company’s common stock made during the quarter ended December 31, 2010, by or on behalf of the Company (dollar amounts in millions):

							Maximum
					Total Number		Dollar Value
			Average		of Shares		of Shares
	Total		Price		Repurchased as		that May Yet Be
	Number		Paid		Part of Publicly		Repurchased
	of Shares		Per		Announced		Under
	Repurchased		Share		Program		the Program
October 1 – October 31		--	$	--		--	$	234.3
November 1 – November 30		--		--		--		234.3
December 1 - December 31		--		--		--		234.3
		--	$	--		--

At January 1, 2007, the Company had authorization to repurchase up to $350.0 of shares of the Company’s common stock ($100.0 authorized on April 21, 2005 and $250.0 authorized on October 20, 2006). On March 9, 2007, the Company announced the Board of Directors authorized the purchase of up to $500.0 of additional shares of the Company’s common stock. On November 2, 2007, the Company announced the Board of Directors authorized the purchase of up to $500.0 of additional shares of the Company’s common stock. On August 10, 2009, the Company announced the Board of Directors authorized the purchase of up to $250.0 of additional shares of the Company’s common stock. On February 11, 2010, the Company announced the Board of Directors authorized the purchase of up to $250.0 of additional shares of the Company’s common stock. On August 9, 2010, the Company announced the Board of Directors authorized the purchase of up to $250.0 of additional shares of the Company’s common stock. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had outstanding authorization from the Board of Directors to purchase approximately up to $234.3 of Company common stock. During January 2011, the Company completed its repurchase authorization, representing approximately 2.6 shares of its common stock. On February 10, 2011, the Company announced the Board of Directors authorized the purchase of up to $500.0 of additional shares of the Company’s common stock.

Item 6.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The selected financial data presented below under the captions "Statement of Operations Data" and "Balance Sheet Data" as of and for the five-year period ended December 31, 2010 are derived from consolidated financial statements of the Company, which have been audited by an independent registered public accounting firm. This data should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes, the Company's consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto, and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," all included elsewhere herein.

	Year Ended December 31,
	(a)		(b)		(c)		(d)		(e)(f)
	2010		2009		2008		2007		2006
	(In millions, except per share amounts)
Statement of Operations Data:
Net sales	$	5,003.9	$	4,694.7	$	4,505.2	$	4,068.2	$	3,590.8
Gross profit		2,097.8		1,970.9		1,873.8		1,691.2		1,529.4
Operating income		978.8		935.9		842.9		777.0		697.1
Net earnings attributable to Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings		558.2		543.3		464.5		476.8		431.6

Basic earnings per common share	$	5.42	$	5.06	$	4.23	$	4.08	$	3.48
Diluted earnings per common share	$	5.29	$	4.98	$	4.16	$	3.93	$	3.24

Basic weighted average common
shares outstanding		103.0		107.4		109.7		116.8		124.1
Diluted weighted average common
shares outstanding		105.4		109.1		111.8		121.3		134.7

Balance Sheet Data:
Cash and cash equivalents, and
short-term investments	$	230.7	$	148.5	$	219.7	$	166.3	$	186.9
Goodwill and intangible assets, net		4,275.4		3,239.3		2,994.8		2,252.9		2,094.2
Total assets		6,187.8		4,837.8		4,669.5		4,368.2		4,000.8
Long-term obligations (g)		2,188.4		1,394.4		1,721.3		1,667.0		1,157.4
Total shareholders' equity		2,466.3		2,106.1		1,688.3		1,725.3		1,977.1

(a)	During 2010, the Company recorded net restructuring charges of $5.8 primarily related to work force reductions and the closing of redundant and underutilized facilities. In addition, the Company recorded a special charge of $6.2 related to the write-off of development costs incurred on systems abandoned during the year.

	The Company incurred approximately $25.7 in professional fees and expenses in connection with the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics and other acquisition activity, including significant costs associated with the Federal Trade Commission’s review of the Company’s purchase of specified net assets of Westcliff Medical Laboratories, Inc. These fees and expenses are included in selling, general and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2010.

	The Company also incurred $7.0 of financing commitment fees (included in interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2010) in connection with the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics.

(b)	During 2009, the Company recorded net restructuring charges of $13.5 primarily related to the closing of redundant and underutilized facilities.

	In October 2009, the Company received approval from its Board of Directors to freeze any additional service-based credits for any years of service after December 31, 2009 on the defined benefit retirement plan (the “Company Plan”) and the nonqualified supplemental retirement plan (the “PEP”). As a result of the changes to the Company Plan and PEP which were adopted in the fourth quarter of 2009, the Company recognized a net curtailment charge of $2.8 due to remeasurement of the PEP obligation at December 31, 2009 and the acceleration of unrecognized prior service for that plan. In addition, the Company recorded favorable adjustments of $21.5 to its tax provision relating to the resolution of certain state income tax issues under audit, as well as the realization of foreign tax credits.

	In connection with the Monogram Biosciences, Inc. acquisition, the Company incurred $2.7 in transaction fees and expenses in the third quarter of 2009.

(c)	During 2008, the Company recorded net restructuring charges of $32.4 primarily related to work force reductions and the closing of redundant and underutilized facilities. During the third quarter of 2008, the Company also recorded a special charge of $5.5 related to estimated uncollectible amounts primarily owed by patients in the areas of the Gulf Coast severely impacted by hurricanes similar to losses incurred during the 2005 hurricane season.

	In the fourth quarter of 2008, the Company recorded a $7.5 cumulative revenue adjustment relating to certain historic overpayments made by Medicare for claims submitted by a subsidiary of the Company. In addition, the Company recorded a $7.1 favorable adjustment to its fourth quarter tax provision relating to tax treaty changes adopted by the United States and Canada.

	During the fourth quarter of 2008, the Company recorded charges of approximately $3.7, which related to the acceleration of the recognition of stock compensation and certain defined benefit plan obligations due to the announced retirement of the Company’s Executive Vice President of Corporate Affairs, effective December 31, 2008.

	In the second quarter of 2008, the Company recorded a $45.0 increase in its provision for doubtful accounts. The Company’s estimate of the allowance for doubtful accounts was increased due to the impact of the economy, higher patient deductibles and copayments, and recent acquisitions on the collectibility of accounts receivable balances.

(d)	During 2007, the Company recorded net restructuring charges of $50.6 related to reductions in work force and consolidation of redundant and underutilized facilities.

(e)	Effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted authoritative guidance in connection with share-based payments, which requires the Company to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for all equity awards granted, based on the fair market value of the award as of the grant date. As a result of adopting the guidance, the Company recorded approximately $23.3 in stock compensation expense relating to its stock option and employee stock purchase plans for the year ended December 31, 2006. Net earnings for the year ended December 31, 2006, were reduced by $13.9, net of tax.

(f)	During the second half of 2006, the Company recorded charges of approximately $12.3, primarily related to the acceleration of the recognition of stock compensation due to the announced retirement of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, effective December 31, 2006. The Company also recorded net restructuring charges of $1.0 in the third quarter of 2006, relating to certain expense-reduction initiatives undertaken across the Company’s corporate and divisional operations.

(g)

Long-term obligations primarily include the Company’s zero-coupon convertible subordinated notes, 5 1/2% senior notes due 2013, 5 5/8% senior notes due 2015, 3.125% senior notes due 2016, 4.625% senior notes due 2020, term loan, revolving credit facility and other long-term obligations. The accreted balance of the zero-coupon convertible subordinated notes was $286.7, $292.2, $573.5, $564.4, and $554.4, at December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The balance of the 5 1/2% senior notes, including principal and unamortized portion of a deferred gain on an interest rate swap agreement, was $350.9, $351.3, $351.7, $352.2, and $352.6, at December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. The principal balance of the 5 5/8% senior notes was $250.0 at December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006. The principal balance of the 3.125% senior notes was $325.0 at December 31, 2010 and $0 for all other years presented. The principal balance of the 4.625% senior notes was $600.0 at December 31, 2010 and $0 for all other years presented. The term loan was $375.0, $425.0, $475.0, $500.0 and $0 at December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The revolving credit facility was $75.0 and $70.8 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, and $0 for all other years presented. The remainder of other long-term obligations consisted primarily of mortgages payable with balances of $0.8, $0.9, $0.3, $0.4, and $0.4, at December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. Long-term obligations exclude amounts due to affiliates.

Item 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (in millions)

General

During 2010, the Company continued to strengthen its financial performance through pricing discipline, continued growth of its esoteric testing, outcome improvement and companion diagnostics offerings, and expense control.

On December 1, 2010, the Company acquired Genzyme Genetics, a business unit of Genzyme Corporation, for approximately $925.2 in cash (net of cash acquired). The Genzyme Genetics acquisition was made to expand the Company’s capabilities in reproductive, genetic, hematology-oncology and clinical trials central laboratory testing, enhance the Company’s esoteric testing capabilities and advance the Company’s personalized medicine strategy.

On October 28, 2010, in conjunction with the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics, the Company entered into a $925.0 bridge term loan credit agreement. The Company replaced and terminated the bridge term loan credit agreement in November 2010 by making an offering in the debt capital markets. On November 19, 2010, the Company sold $925.0 in debt securities, consisting of $325.0 aggregate principal amount of 3.125% Senior Notes due May 15, 2016 and $600.0 aggregate principal amount of 4.625% Senior Notes due November 15, 2020. As of December 31, 2010 the Company incurred $7.0 of financing commitment fees, which is included in interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company incurred approximately $25.7 in professional fees and expenses in connection with the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics and other acquisition activity, including significant costs associated with the Federal Trade Commission’s review of the Company’s purchase of specified net assets of Westcliff Medical Laboratories, Inc. These fees and expenses are included in selling, general and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Due to the normal post-acquisition enrollment process for government payers and contract assignment process for managed care payers, the Company will experience delays in billing for services rendered by Genzyme Genetics. Cash collections, receivable agings and DSO in the first quarter of 2011 will be negatively impacted by these delays. The Company expects the delays to be resolved in due course and the related billings and collections will be brought up-to-date during the second quarter of 2011. The acquisition of Genzyme Genetics is expected to be approximately $0.25 to $0.35 dilutive to the Company’s earnings per share in 2011.

Effective January 1, 2008 the Company acquired additional partnership units in its Ontario, Canada (“Ontario”) joint venture for approximately $140.9 in cash (net of cash acquired), bringing the Company’s percentage interest owned to 85.6%. Concurrent with this acquisition, the terms of the joint venture’s partnership agreement were amended. Based upon the amended terms of this agreement, the Company began including the consolidated operating results, financial position and cash flows of the Ontario joint venture in the Company’s consolidated financial statements on January 1, 2008. The amended joint venture’s partnership agreement also enabled the holders of the noncontrolling interest to put the remaining partnership units to the Company in defined future periods, at an initial amount equal to the consideration paid by the Company in 2008, and subject to adjustment based on market value formulas contained in the agreement. In December 2009, the Company received notification from the holders of the noncontrolling interest in the Ontario joint venture that they intended to put their remaining partnership units to the Company in accordance with the terms of the joint venture’s partnership agreement. These units were acquired on February 8, 2010 for $137.5. On February 17, 2010, the Company completed a transaction to sell the units acquired from the previous noncontrolling interest holder to a new Canadian partner for the same price. As a result of this transaction, the Company recorded a component of noncontrolling interest in other liabilities and a component in mezzanine equity. Upon the completion of these two transactions, the Company’s financial ownership percentage in the joint venture partnership remained unchanged at 85.6%. Concurrent with the sale to the new partner, the partnership agreement for the Ontario joint venture was amended and restated with substantially the same terms as the previous agreement. The contractual value of these puts, in excess of the current noncontrolling interest of $25.2, totaled $143.5 at December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2010, $148.1

has been classified as a current liability in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as the noncontrolling interest that acquired these units has the ability to put its units in the partnership to the Company on December 31, 2011.

Effective January 1, 2007, the Company commenced its successful implementation of its ten-year agreement with United Healthcare Insurance Company (“UnitedHealthcare”) and became its exclusive national laboratory provider. During the first three years of the ten-year agreement, the Company committed to reimburse UnitedHealthcare up to $200.0 for transition costs related to developing expanded networks in defined markets during the first three years of the agreement. At the end of the reimbursement period, approximately $119.6 of such transition payments have been billed to the Company by UnitedHealthcare and approximately $119.6 has been remitted by the Company. UnitedHealthcare has indicated that there will be no further billings. The Company is amortizing the total transition costs over the life of the contract.

Seasonality

The majority of the Company’s testing volume is dependent on patient visits to doctor’s offices and other providers of health care. Volume of testing generally declines during the year-end holiday periods and other major holidays. In addition, volume declines due to inclement weather may reduce net revenues and cash flows. Therefore, comparison of the results of successive quarters may not accurately reflect trends or results for the full year.

Results of Operations (amounts in millions except Revenue Per Requisition info)

Years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

Operating results for the year ended December 31, 2010 were negatively impacted by severe winter weather primarily in the eastern and middle sections of the country during the first quarter of 2010. The Company’s testing facilities were not damaged by the severe winter weather; however, specimen volume was negatively impacted due to patients’ inability to visit doctors’ offices and PSCs – the sources of the majority of testing volume. During the year ended December 31, 2010 inclement weather had an impact on the Company’s results, reducing volumes by an estimated 0.3%, and revenue by an estimated $23.0.

Net Sales

	Years Ended December 31,						% Change
Net sales	2010		2009		2008		2010			2009
Routine Testing	$	2,995.4	$	2,845.6	$	2,777.9		5.3	%		2.4	%
Genomic and Esoteric Testing		1,728.5		1,601.6		1,478.3		7.9	%		8.3	%
Ontario, Canada		280.0		247.5		249.0		13.1	%		(0.6	)%
Total	$	5,003.9	$	4,694.7	$	4,505.2		6.6	%		4.2	%

	Years Ended December 31,						% Change
Volume	2010		2009		2008		2010			2009
Routine Testing		83.3		84.6		86.0		(1.6	)%		(1.6	)%
Genomic and Esoteric Testing		27.2		25.8		23.7		5.7	%		8.9	%
Ontario, Canada		9.1		9.1		8.0		0.4	%		12.9	%
Total		119.6		119.5		117.7		0.1	%		1.5	%

	Years Ended December 31,						% Change
Revenue Per Requisition	2010		2009		2008		2010			2009
Routine Testing	$	35.96	$	33.62	$	32.30		7.0	%		4.1	%
Genomic and Esoteric Testing	$	63.48	$	62.14	$	62.49		2.2	%		(0.6	)%
Ontario, Canada	$	30.68	$	27.24	$	30.92		12.6	%		(11.9	)%
Total	$	41.82	$	39.29	$	38.28		6.4	%		2.6	%

The increase in net sales for the three years ended December 31, 2010 has been driven primarily by growth in the Company’s managed care business, increased revenue from third parties (Medicare and Medicaid), the Company’s continued shift in test mix to higher-priced genomic and esoteric tests, growth in revenue per requisition in the Company’s routine testing and the impact of acquisitions. Managed care and third party revenue as a percentage of net sales increased from 59.7% in 2008 to 61.5% in 2010. Genomic and esoteric testing volume as a percentage of total volume increased from 20.1% in 2008 to 22.8% in 2010. The continuing impact of government contracts terminated during 2009 reduced routine testing volume by 1.8% for the year ended December 31, 2010. Revenue per requisition growth was impacted by lost contracts and the recognition of deferred revenue resulting from an amendment to a customer contract, which together improved revenue per requisition by approximately 1.6% in 2010. During the fourth quarter of 2008, the Company recorded a $7.5 cumulative revenue adjustment relating to certain historic overpayments made by Medicare for claims submitted by a subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 2005. Net sales of the Ontario joint venture were $280.0, $247.5 and $249.0 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively, an increase of $32.5 or 13.1% in 2010 and a decrease of $1.5 or 0.6% in 2009. Net sales for the Ontario joint venture were impacted by a weaker U.S. dollar in 2010 and a stronger U.S. dollar in 2009. In Canadian dollars, net sales of the Ontario joint venture increased by CN$7.2 or 2.6% in 2010 and CN$16.9 or 6.4% in 2009.

Cost of Sales	Years Ended December 31,									% Change
	2010			2009			2008			2010			2009
Cost of sales	$	2,906.1		$	2,723.8		$	2,631.4			6.7	%		3.5	%
Cost of sales as a % of sales		58.1	%		58.0	%		58.4	%

Cost of sales (primarily laboratory and distribution costs) has increased over the three year period ended December 31, 2010 primarily due to increases in labor, growth in the Company’s Managed Care and third party (Medicare and Medicaid) business, the continued shift in test mix to higher cost genomic and esoteric testing and the impact of acquisitions. As a percentage of sales, cost of sales has decreased during the three year period ended December 31, 2010 from 58.4% in 2008 to 58.1% in 2010. Cost of sales as a percentage of net sales was comparable for 2010 and 2009. The Company’s improved efficiency resulting from lab and PSC automation was offset by lower margins on recently acquired operations that have not been fully integrated into the Company’s operating cost structure as of December 31, 2010. The percentage of cost of sales was maintained even though the Company experienced the loss of revenue as a result of the severe winter weather during the first quarter of 2010. The decrease in cost of sales from 2008 to 2009 as a percentage of net sales was primarily due to operating efficiencies and effective expense controls coupled with the growth of revenue per requisition. Labor and testing supplies comprise over 75% of the Company’s cost of sales.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

	Years Ended December 31,									% Change
	2010			2009			2008			2010			2009
Selling, general and administrative
expenses	$	1,034.3		$	958.9		$	935.1			7.9	%		2.5	%
SG&A as a % of sales		20.7	%		20.4	%		20.8	%

Total selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) as a percentage of sales over the three year period ended December 31, 2010 have ranged from 20.4% to 20.8%. Bad debt expense decreased to 4.8% of net sales in 2010 as compared with 5.3% and 6.2% in 2009 and 2008, respectively. The lower bad debt expense as a percentage of net sales in 2010 and 2009 is primarily due to improved collection trends resulting from process improvement programs within the Company’s billing department and field operations. The higher level of bad debt expense in 2008 was primarily due to the increase in the second quarter of 2008 of $45.0 in the Company’s provision for doubtful accounts. The Company’s estimate of the allowance for doubtful accounts was increased in 2008 due to the impact of the economy, higher patient deductibles and copayments, and acquisitions on the collectibility of accounts receivable balances.

The increase in SG&A as a percentage of net sales in 2010 as compared with 2009 is primarily due to acquisition related transaction costs of $25.7 in 2010, expenses from recently acquired operations that have not been fully integrated into the Company’s operating cost structure as of December 31, 2010 and

the loss of revenue as a result of the severe winter weather experienced during the first quarter of 2010. In 2009, SG&A included Monogram’s incremental SG&A beginning in August 2009 and acquisition related costs of $2.7 in connection with the Monogram acquisition. As a result of changes to the Company’s defined benefit retirement plan and its PEP which were adopted in the fourth quarter of 2009, the Company recognized a net curtailment charge of $2.8 due to remeasurement of the PEP obligation at December 31, 2009 and the acceleration of unrecognized prior service for that plan. During the fourth quarter of 2008, the Company recorded charges of $3.7 related to the acceleration of the recognition of stock compensation and certain defined benefit plan obligations due to the retirement of the Company’s Executive Vice President of Corporate Affairs which was effective December 31, 2008.

Amortization of Intangibles and Other Assets

	Years Ended December 31,						% Change
	2010		2009		2008		2010			2009
Amortization of intangibles and other
assets	$	72.7	$	62.6	$	57.9		16.1	%		8.1	%

The increase in amortization of intangibles and other assets over the three year period ended December 31, 2010 primarily reflects certain acquisitions closed during 2010 and 2009.

Restructuring and Other Special Charges

	Years Ended December 31,
	2010		2009		2008

Restructuring and other special charges	$	12.0	$	13.5	$	37.9

During 2010, the Company recorded net restructuring charges of $5.8 primarily related to work force reductions and the closing of redundant and underutilized facilities. The majority of these costs related to severance and other employee costs and contractual obligations associated with leased facilities and other facility related costs. Of this amount, $8.0 related to severance and other employee costs in connection with certain work force reductions and $3.1 related to contractual obligations associated with leased facilities and other facility related costs. These restructuring initiatives are expected to provide annualized cost savings of approximately $34.7. The Company also reduced its prior restructuring accruals by $5.3, comprised of $4.7 of previously recorded facility costs and $0.6 of employee severance benefits as a result of changes in cost estimates on the restructuring initiatives. In addition, the Company recorded a special charge of $6.2 related to the write-off of development costs incurred on systems abandoned during the year.

During 2009, the Company recorded net restructuring charges of $13.5 primarily related to the closing of redundant and underutilized facilities. The majority of these costs related to severance and other employee costs and contractual obligations associated with leased facilities and other facility related costs. Of this amount, $10.5 related to severance and other employee costs for employees primarily in the affected facilities, and $12.5 related to contractual obligations associated with leased facilities and other facility related costs. The Company also reduced its prior restructuring accruals by $9.5, comprised of $7.3 of previously recorded facility costs and $2.2 of employee severance benefits as a result of incurring less cost than planned on those restructuring initiatives primarily resulting from favorable settlements on lease buyouts and severance payments that were not required to achieve the planned reduction in work force.

During 2008, the Company recorded net restructuring charges of $32.4 primarily related to work force reductions and the closing of redundant and underutilized facilities. Of this amount, $20.9 related to severance and other employee costs in connection with the general work force reductions and $13.4 related to contractual obligations associated with leased facilities and equipment. The Company also recorded a credit of $1.9, comprised of $1.2 of previously recorded facility costs and $0.7 of employee severance benefits relating to changes in cost estimates accrued in prior periods.

During the third quarter of 2008, the Company also recorded a special charge of $5.5 related to estimated uncollectible amounts primarily owed by patients in the areas of the Gulf Coast severely impacted by hurricanes similar to losses incurred during the 2005 hurricane season.

Interest Expense	Years Ended December 31,						% Change
	2010		2009		2008		2010			2009
Interest expense	$	70.0	$	62.9	$	72.0		11.3	%		(12.6	)%

The increase in interest expense for 2010 as compared to 2009 was primarily due to the Company incurring $7.0 of bridge financing fees related to the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics and interest incurred since November 2010 on proceeds from the senior notes offerings of $925.0. Other interest related costs decreased due to lower average borrowings outstanding in 2010 as compared with 2009 primarily due to principal payments on the Term Loan Facility. The decrease in interest expense for 2009 as compared to 2008 was primarily driven by lower average borrowings outstanding in 2009 due to principal payments on the Term Loan Facility and the redemption of approximately 50% of the zero-coupon subordinated notes in the second quarter of 2009. Also, the Company’s zero-coupon subordinated notes did not accrue contingent cash interest for the period March 12, 2009 through December 31, 2009.

Equity Method Income

	Years Ended December 31,						% Change
	2010		2009		2008		2010			2009
Equity method income	$	10.6	$	13.8	$	14.4		(23.2	)%		(4.2	)%

Equity method income represents the Company’s ownership share in joint venture partnerships along with stock investments in other companies in the clinical diagnostic industry. The decrease in income since 2008 is primarily due to the Company’s share of losses in the Cincinnati, Ohio joint venture and the Canada, China and Western Europe equity method investment.

Income Tax Expense	Years Ended December 31,
	2010			2009			2008
Income tax expense	$	344.0		$	329.0		$	307.9
Income tax expense as a %
of income before tax		37.6	%		37.2	%		39.2	%

The effective tax rate for 2010 was favorably impacted by a benefit relating to the net decrease in unrecognized income tax benefits. The effective tax rate for 2009 was favorably impacted by adjustments of $21.5 relating to the resolution of certain state tax issues under audit, as well as the realization of foreign tax credits.

Liquidity, Capital Resources and Financial Position

The Company’s strong cash-generating capability and financial condition typically have provided ready access to capital markets. The Company’s principal source of liquidity is operating cash flow, supplemented by proceeds from debt offerings. This cash-generating capability is one of the Company’s fundamental strengths and provides substantial financial flexibility in meeting operating, investing and financing needs. The Company’s senior unsecured credit facilities are further discussed in "Note 11 to Consolidated Financial Statements."

Operating Activities

In 2010, the Company’s operations provided $883.6 of cash, net of $16.8 in transition payments to UnitedHealthcare, reflecting the Company’s solid business results. The increase in the Company’s cash flow from operations primarily resulted from lower transition payments to UnitedHealthcare. The Company continued to focus on efforts to increase cash collections from all payers and to generate on-going improvements to the claim submission processes.

The Company made contributions to the defined benefit retirement plan (“Company Plan”) of $0.0, $54.8 and $0.0 in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. In October 2009, the Company received approval from its Board of Directors to freeze any additional service-based credits for any years of service after December 31, 2009 on the Company Plan and the PEP. Both plans have been closed to new participants. Employees participating in the Company Plan and the PEP no longer earn service-based credits, but

continue to earn interest credits. In addition, effective January 1, 2010, all employees eligible for the defined contribution retirement plan (the “401K Plan”) receive a minimum 3% non-elective contribution (“NEC”) concurrent with each payroll period. The NEC replaces the Company match, which has been discontinued. Employees are not required to make a contribution to the 401K Plan to receive the NEC. The NEC is non-forfeitable and vests immediately. The 401K Plan also permits discretionary contributions by the Company of 1% to 3% of pay for eligible employees based on service. Non-elective and discretionary contributions are approximately $25.4 higher in 2010 than the Company’s contributions to its 401K Plan in 2009.

Projected pension expense for the Company Plan and PEP is expected to decrease from $9.6 in 2010 to $8.9 in 2011. In addition, the Company does not plan to make contributions to the Company Plan during 2011. See “Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements” for a further discussion of the Company’s pension and postretirement plans.

Investing Activities

Capital expenditures were $126.1, $114.7 and $156.7 for 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The Company expects capital expenditures of approximately $140.0 to $150.0 in 2011. The Company will continue to make important investments in its business, including information technology. Such expenditures are expected to be funded by cash flow from operations, as well as borrowings under the Company’s revolving credit facilities as needed.

The Company remains committed to growing its business through strategic acquisitions and licensing agreements. The Company has invested a total of $1,738.7 over the past three years in strategic business acquisitions. These acquisitions have helped strengthen the Company’s geographic presence along with expanding capabilities in the specialty testing operations. The Company believes the acquisition market remains attractive with a number of opportunities to strengthen its scientific capabilities, grow esoteric testing capabilities and increase presence in key geographic areas.

The Company has invested a total of $50.6 over the past three years in licensing new testing technologies (including approximately $49.4 estimated fair market value of technology acquired in certain acquisitions in 2010 and 2009) and had $69.0 net book value of capitalized patents, licenses and technology at December 31, 2010. While the Company continues to believe its strategy of entering into licensing and technology distribution agreements with the developers of leading-edge technologies will provide future growth in revenues, there are certain risks associated with these investments. These risks include, but are not limited to, the failure of the licensed technology to gain broad acceptance in the marketplace and/or that insurance companies, managed care organizations, or Medicare and Medicaid will not approve reimbursement for these tests at a level commensurate with the costs of running the tests. Any or all of these circumstances could result in impairment in the value of the related capitalized licensing costs.

Financing Activities

On October 26, 2007, the Company entered into senior unsecured credit facilities totaling $1,000.0. The credit facilities consist of a five-year Revolving Facility in the principal amount of $500.0 and a five-year, $500.0 Term Loan Facility. The balances outstanding on the Company’s Term Loan Facility at December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $375.0 and $425.0, respectively. The balances outstanding on the Company’s Revolving Facility at December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $0.0 and $75.0, respectively. The senior unsecured credit facilities bear interest at varying rates based upon LIBOR plus a percentage based on the Company’s credit rating with Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services.

The senior credit facilities contain certain debt covenants, which require that the Company maintain a leverage ratio of no more than 2.5 to 1.0 and an interest coverage ratio of at least 5.0 to 1.0. Both ratios are calculated in relation to EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization). The credit agreement allows payment of dividends provided that the Company is not in default (as defined in the agreement) and its leverage ratio is less than 2.0 to 1.0. The Company is in compliance with all covenants at December 31, 2010.

On March 31, 2008, the Company entered into a three-year interest rate swap agreement to hedge variable interest rate risk on the Company’s variable interest rate term loan. On a quarterly basis under the swap, the Company pays a fixed rate of interest (2.92%) and receives a variable rate of interest based on the three-month LIBOR rate on an amortizing notional amount of indebtedness equivalent to the term loan balance outstanding. The swap has been designated as a cash flow hedge. Accordingly, the Company recognizes the fair value of the swap in the consolidated balance sheets and any changes in the fair value are recorded as adjustments to accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax. The fair value of the interest rate swap agreement is the estimated amount that the Company would pay or receive to terminate the swap agreement at the reporting date. The fair value of the swap was a liability of $2.4 and $10.6 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and is included in other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.

As of December 31, 2010, the interest rates on the Term Loan Facility and the Revolving Facility were 3.67% and 0.61%, respectively.

On October 28, 2010, in conjunction with the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics, the Company entered into a $925.0 Bridge Term Loan Credit Agreement, among the Company, the lenders named therein and Citibank, N.A., as administrative agent (the “Bridge Facility”). The Company replaced and terminated the Bridge Facility in November 2010 by making an offering in the debt capital markets. On November 19, 2010, the Company sold $925.0 in debt securities, consisting of $325.0 aggregate principal amount of 3.125% Senior Notes due May 15, 2016 and $600.0 aggregate principal amount of 4.625% Senior Notes due November 15, 2020. Beginning on May 15, 2011, interest on the Senior Notes due 2016 and 2020 is payable semi-annually on May 15 and November 15. On December 1, 2010, the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics was funded by the proceeds from the issuance of these Notes ($915.4) and with cash on hand.

During 2010, the Company repurchased $337.5 of stock representing 4.5 shares. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had outstanding authorization from the Board of Directors to purchase approximately $234.3 of Company common stock. During January 2011, the Company completed its repurchase authorization, representing approximately 2.6 shares of its common stock. On February 10, 2011, the Company announced the Board of Directors authorized the purchase of $500.0 of additional shares of the Company’s common stock.

During the second quarter of 2009, the Company redeemed approximately $369.5 principal amount at maturity of its zero-coupon subordinated notes, equaling approximately 50% of the principal amount at maturity outstanding of the zero-coupon subordinated notes. The total cash used for these redemptions was $289.4. As a result of certain holders of the zero-coupon subordinated notes electing to convert their notes, the Company also issued 0.4 additional shares of common stock and reversed approximately $11.3 of deferred tax liability to reflect the tax benefit realized upon issuance of these shares.

Credit Ratings

The Company’s debt ratings of Baa2 from Moody’s and BBB+ from Standard and Poor’s contribute to its ability to access capital markets.

Contractual Cash Obligations	Payments Due by Period
						2012-		2014-	2016 and
	Total		2011			2013		2015	thereafter
Operating lease obligations	$	480.8	$	145.5	$	184.1	$	78.7	$	72.5
Contingent future licensing payments (a)		74.8		7.7		18.0		26.9		22.2
Minimum royalty payments		21.9		2.4		5.9		6.6		7.0
Zero-coupon subordinated notes (b)		286.7		286.7		--		--		--
Scheduled interest payments on Senior Notes		451.8		71.2		132.8		104.0		143.8
Term loan and revolving credit facility		375.0		75.0		300.0		--		--
Long-term debt, other than term loan,
revolving credit facility and zero-coupon
subordinated notes		1,526.7		--		351.7		250.0		925.0
Total contractual cash obligations (c)(d)	$	3,217.7	$	588.5	$	992.5	$	466.2	$	1,170.5

(a)	Contingent future licensing payments will be made if certain events take place, such as the launch of a specific test, the transfer of certain technology, and when specified revenue milestones are met.

(b)	Holders of the zero-coupon subordinated notes may require the Company to purchase in cash all or a portion of their notes on September 11, 2011 at $819.54 per note ($290.6 in the aggregate). Should the holders put the notes to the Company on that date, the Company believes that it will be able to satisfy this contingent obligation with cash on hand, borrowings on the revolving credit facility, and additional financing if necessary. As announced by the Company on January 3, 2011, holders of the zero-coupon subordinated notes may choose to convert their notes during the first quarter of 2011 subject to terms as defined in the note agreement. See “Note 11 to Consolidated Financial Statements” for further information regarding the Company’s zero-coupon subordinated notes.

(c)	The table does not include obligations under the Company’s pension and postretirement benefit plans, which are included in "Note 16 to Consolidated Financial Statements." Benefits under the Company's postretirement medical plan are made when claims are submitted for payment, the timing of which is not practicable to estimate.

(d)	The table does not include the Company’s reserves for unrecognized tax benefits. The Company had a $65.8 and $73.7 reserve for unrecognized tax benefits, including interest and penalties, at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, which is included in “Note 13 to Consolidated Financial Statements.” Substantially all of these tax reserves are classified in other long-term liabilities in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2010 and 2009.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

The Company does not have transactions or relationships with “special purpose” entities, and the Company does not have any off balance sheet financing other than normal operating leases.

Other Commercial Commitments

At December 31, 2010, the Company provided letters of credit aggregating approximately $37.4, primarily in connection with certain insurance programs. Letters of credit provided by the Company are secured by the Company’s senior credit facilities and are renewed annually, around mid-year.

amended joint venture’s partnership agreement also enabled the holders of the noncontrolling interest to put the remaining partnership units to the Company in defined future periods, at an initial amount equal to the consideration paid by the Company in 2008, and subject to adjustment based on market value formulas contained in the agreement. The initial difference of $123.0 between the value of the put and the underlying noncontrolling interest was recorded as additional noncontrolling interest liability and as a reduction to additional paid-in capital in the consolidated financial statements.

At December 31, 2010, the Company was a guarantor on approximately $1.6 of equipment leases. These leases were entered into by a joint venture in which the Company owns a 50% interest and have a remaining term of approximately two years.

Based on current and projected levels of operations, coupled with availability under its senior credit facilities, the Company believes it has sufficient liquidity to meet both its anticipated short-term and long-term cash needs; however, the Company continually reassesses its liquidity position in light of market conditions and other relevant factors.

New Accounting Pronouncements

In June 2009, the FASB issued authoritative guidance in connection with adding qualified special purpose entities into the scope of guidance for consolidation of variable interest entities. This literature also modifies the analysis by which a controlling interest of a variable interest entity is determined thereby requiring the controlling interest to consolidate the variable interest entity. A controlling interest exists if a party to a variable interest entity has both (i) the power to direct the activities of a variable interest entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance and (ii) the obligation to absorb losses of or receive benefits from the entity that could be potentially significant to the variable interest entity. The guidance became effective in 2010. The adoption of the authoritative guidance did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reported periods. While management believes these estimates are reasonable and consistent, they are by their very nature, estimates of amounts that will depend on future events. Accordingly, actual results could differ from these estimates. The Company’s Audit Committee periodically reviews the Company’s significant accounting policies. The Company’s critical accounting policies arise in conjunction with the following:

·	Revenue recognition and allowances for doubtful accounts;
·	Pension expense;
·	Accruals for self insurance reserves; and
·	Income taxes

Revenue recognition and allowance for doubtful accounts

Revenue is recognized for services rendered when the testing process is complete and test results are reported to the ordering physician. The Company’s sales are generally billed to three types of payers – clients, patients and third parties such as managed care companies, Medicare and Medicaid. For clients, sales are recorded on a fee-for-service basis at the Company’s client list price, less any negotiated discount. Patient sales are recorded at the Company’s patient fee schedule, net of any discounts negotiated with physicians on behalf of their patients. The Company bills third-party payers in two ways – fee-for-service and capitated agreements. Fee-for-service third-party payers are billed at the Company's patient fee schedule amount, and third-party revenue is recorded net of contractual discounts. These discounts are recorded at the transaction level at the time of sale based on a fee schedule that is maintained for each third-party payer. The majority of the Company’s third-party sales are recorded using an actual or contracted fee schedule at the time of sale. For the remaining third-party sales, estimated fee schedules are maintained for each payer. Adjustments to the estimated payment amounts are recorded at the time of final collection and settlement of each transaction as an adjustment to revenue. These adjustments are not material to the Company’s results of operations in any period presented. The Company periodically adjusts these estimated fee schedules based upon historical payment trends. Under capitated agreements with managed care companies, the Company recognizes revenue based on a negotiated monthly contractual rate for each member of the managed care plan regardless of the number or cost of services performed.

The Company has a formal process to estimate and review the collectibility of its receivables based on the period of time they have been outstanding. Bad debt expense is recorded within selling, general and administrative expenses as a percentage of sales considered necessary to maintain the allowance for doubtful accounts at an appropriate level. The Company’s process for determining the appropriate level of the allowance for doubtful accounts involves judgment, and considers such factors as the age of the underlying receivables, historical and projected collection experience, and other external factors that could affect the collectibility of its receivables. Accounts are written off against the allowance for doubtful accounts based on the Company’s write-off policy (e.g., when they are deemed to be uncollectible). In the determination of the appropriate level of the allowance, accounts are progressively reserved based on the historical timing of cash collections relative to their respective aging categories within the Company’s receivables. These collection and reserve processes, along with the close monitoring of the billing process, help reduce the risks of material revisions to reserve estimates resulting from adverse changes in collection or reimbursement experience. The following table presents the percentage of the Company’s net accounts receivable outstanding by aging category at December 31, 2010 and 2009:

Days Outstanding	2010	2009
0 – 30	51.1%	47.7%
31 – 60	17.5%	16.8%
61 – 90	9.7%	10.5%
91 – 120	7.2%	6.8%
121 – 150	4.0%	4.4%
151 – 180	3.7%	4.0%
181 – 270	5.8%	7.8%
271 – 360	0.9%	1.7%
Over 360	0.1%	0.3%

The above table excludes the Ontario operation’s percentage of net accounts receivable outstanding by aging category. The provincial government is the primary customer of the Ontario operation. The

Company believes that including the aging for Ontario would not be representative of the majority of the accounts receivable by aging category for the Company.

Pension Expense

In October 2009, the Company received approval from its Board of Directors to freeze any additional service-based credits for any years of service after December 31, 2009 on the Company Plan and the PEP. Both plans have been closed to new participants. Employees participating in the Company Plan and the PEP no longer earn service-based credits, but continue to earn interest credits. In addition, effective January 1, 2010, all employees eligible for the defined contribution retirement plan (the “401K Plan”) receive a minimum 3% non-elective contribution (“NEC”) concurrent with each payroll period. The 401K Plan also permits discretionary contributions by the Company of 1% to 3% of pay for eligible employees based on service.

The Company Plan covers substantially all employees hired prior to December 31, 2009. The benefits to be paid under the Company Plan are based on years of credited service through December 31, 2009, interest credits and average compensation. The Company also has the PEP which covers its senior management group. Prior to 2010, the PEP provided for the payment of the difference, if any, between the amount of any maximum limitation on annual benefit payments under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the annual benefit that would be payable under the Company Plan but for such limitation.

The Company's net pension cost is developed from actuarial valuations. Inherent in these valuations are key assumptions, including discount rates and expected return on plan assets, which are updated on an annual basis at the beginning of each year. The Company is required to consider current market conditions, including changes in interest rates, in making these assumptions. Changes in pension costs may occur in the future due to changes in these assumptions. The key assumptions used in accounting for the defined benefit retirement plans were a 5.1% discount rate and a 7.5% expected long-term rate of return on plan assets as of December 31, 2010.

Discount Rate

The Company evaluates several approaches toward setting the discount rate assumption that is used to value the benefit obligations of its retirement plans. At year-end, priority was given to use of the Citigroup Pension Discount Curve and anticipated cash outflows of each retirement plan were discounted with the spot yields from the Citigroup Pension Discount Curve. A single-effective discount rate assumption was then determined for each retirement plan based on this analysis. A one percentage point decrease or increase in the discount rate would have resulted in a respective increase or decrease in 2010 retirement plan expense of $1.5.

Return on Plan Assets

In establishing its expected return on plan assets assumption, the Company reviews its asset allocation and develops return assumptions based on different asset classes adjusting for plan operating expenses. Actual asset over/under performance compared to expected returns will respectively decrease/increase unrecognized loss. The change in the unrecognized loss will change amortization cost in upcoming periods. A one percentage point increase or decrease in the expected return on plan assets would have resulted in a corresponding change in 2010 pension expense of $2.5.

Net pension cost for 2010 was $9.6 as compared with $36.6 in 2009 (including the impact of the $2.8 non-recurring net curtailment charge). The decrease in pension expense in 2010 was due to the changes to the Company Plan and PEP. Projected pension expense for the Company Plan and the PEP is expected to decrease from $9.6 in 2010 to $8.9 in 2011.

Further information on the Company’s defined benefit retirement plan is provided in Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements.

Accruals for Self-insurance Reserves

Accruals for self-insurance reserves (including workers’ compensation, auto and employee medical) are determined based on a number of assumptions and factors, including historical payment trends and claims history, actuarial assumptions and current and estimated future economic conditions. These estimated liabilities are not discounted.

The Company is self-insured (up to certain limits) for professional liability claims arising in the normal course of business, generally related to the testing and reporting of laboratory test results. The Company maintains excess insurance which limits the Company’s maximum exposure on individual claims. The Company estimates a liability that represents the ultimate exposure for aggregate losses below those limits. The liability is discounted and is based on a number of assumptions and factors for known and incurred but not reported claims based on an actuarial assessment of the accrual driven by frequency and amount of claims.

If actual trends differ from these estimates, the financial results could be impacted. Historical trends have not differed materially from these estimates.

Income Taxes

The Company accounts for income taxes utilizing the asset and liability method. Under this 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 and for tax loss carryforwards. 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 does not recognize a tax benefit, unless the Company concludes that it is more likely than not that the benefit will be sustained on audit by the taxing authority based solely on the technical merits of the associated tax position. If the recognition threshold is met, the Company recognizes a tax benefit measured at the largest amount of the tax benefit that the Company believes is greater than 50% likely to be realized. The Company records interest and penalties in income tax expense.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The Company has made in this report, and from time to time may otherwise make in its public filings, press releases and discussions by Company management, forward-looking statements concerning the Company’s operations, performance and financial condition, as well as its strategic objectives. Some of these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “believes”, “expects”, “may”, “will”, “should”, “seeks”, “approximately”, “intends”, “plans”, “estimates”, or “anticipates” or the negative of those words or other comparable terminology. Such forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties and the Company claims the protection afforded by the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results could differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors in addition to those discussed elsewhere herein and in the Company’s other public filings, press releases and discussions with Company management, including:

1.	changes in federal, state, local and third party payer regulations or policies or other future reforms in the health care system (or in the interpretation of current regulations), new insurance or payment systems, including state or regional insurance cooperatives, new public insurance programs or a single-payer system, affecting governmental and third-party coverage or reimbursement for clinical laboratory testing;

2.	adverse results from investigations or audits of clinical laboratories by the government, which may include significant monetary damages, refunds and/or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs;

3.	loss or suspension of a license or imposition of a fine or penalties under, or future changes in, or interpretations of, the law or regulations of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1967, and the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, or those of Medicare, Medicaid, the False Claims Act or other federal, state or local agencies;

4.	failure to comply with the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements and the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act, which may result in penalties and loss of licensure;

5.	failure to comply with HIPAA, including changes to federal and state privacy and security obligations and changes to HIPAA, including those changes included within HITECH and any subsequent amendments, which could result in increased costs, denial of claims and/or significant penalties;

6.	failure to maintain the security of customer-related information or compliance with security requirements could damage the Company’s reputation with customers, cause it to incur substantial additional costs and become subject to litigation;

7.	failure of the Company, third party payers or physicians to comply with Version 5010 Transactions by January 1, 2012 or the ICD-10-CM Code Set issued by the Department of Health and Human Services and effective for claims submitted as of October 1, 2013;

8.	increased competition, including competition from companies that do not comply with existing laws or regulations or otherwise disregard compliance standards in the industry;

9.	increased price competition, competitive bidding for laboratory tests and/or changes or reductions to fee schedules;

10.	changes in payer mix, including an increase in capitated reimbursement mechanisms or the impact of a shift to consumer-driven health plans;

11.	failure to obtain and retain new customers and alliance partners, or a reduction in tests ordered or specimens submitted by existing customers;

12.	failure to retain or attract managed care business as a result of changes in business models, including new risk based or network approaches, or other changes in strategy or business models by managed care companies;

13.	failure to effectively integrate and/or manage newly acquired businesses, including Genzyme Genetics, and the cost related to such integrations;

14.	the effects of the acquisition of Genzyme Genetics on the Company’s cash position and levels of indebtedness;

15.	adverse results in litigation matters;

16.	inability to attract and retain experienced and qualified personnel;

17.	failure to maintain the Company’s days sales outstanding and/or bad debt expense levels;

18.	decrease in the Company’s credit ratings by Standard & Poor’s and/or Moody’s;

19.	discontinuation or recalls of existing testing products;

20.	failure to develop or acquire licenses for new or improved technologies, or if customers use new technologies to perform their own tests;

21.	inability to commercialize newly licensed tests or technologies or to obtain appropriate coverage or reimbursement for such tests, which could result in impairment in the value of certain capitalized licensing costs;

22.	changes in government regulations or policies, including regulations and policies of the Food and Drug Administration, affecting the approval, availability of, and the selling and marketing of diagnostic tests;

23.	inability to obtain and maintain adequate patent and other proprietary rights for protection of the Company’s products and services and successfully enforce the Company’s proprietary rights;

24.	the scope, validity and enforceability of patents and other proprietary rights held by third parties which might have an impact on the Company’s ability to develop, perform, or market the Company’s tests or operate its business;

25.	failure in the Company’s information technology systems resulting in an increase in testing turnaround time or billing processes or the failure to meet future regulatory or customer information technology, data security and connectivity requirements;

26.	failure of the Company’s financial information systems resulting in failure to meet required financial reporting deadlines;

27.	failure of the Company's disaster recovery plans to provide adequate protection against the interruption of business and/or to permit the recovery of business operations;

28.	business interruption or other impact on the business due to adverse weather (including hurricanes), fires and/or other natural disasters, terrorism or other criminal acts, and/or widespread outbreak of influenza or other pandemic illness;

29.	liabilities that result from the inability to comply with corporate governance requirements;

30.	significant deterioration in the economy or financial markets which could negatively impact the Company’s testing volumes, cash collections and the availability of credit for general liquidity or other financing needs; and


31.	changes in reimbursement by foreign governments and foreign currency fluctuations.

Item 7A.

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK

The Company addresses its exposure to market risks, principally the market risk associated with changes in interest rates, through a controlled program of risk management that includes from time to time, the use of derivative financial instruments such as interest rate swap agreements. Although, as set forth below, the Company’s zero-coupon subordinated notes contain features that are considered to be embedded derivative instruments, the Company does not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading purposes. The Company does not believe that its exposure to market risk is material to the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

The Company’s zero-coupon subordinated notes contain the following two features that are considered to be embedded derivative instruments under authoritative guidance in connection with accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities:

1)	The Company will pay contingent cash interest on the zero-coupon subordinated notes after September 11, 2006, if the average market price of the notes equals 120% or more of the sum of the issue price, accrued original issue discount and contingent additional principal, if any, for a specified measurement period.

2)	Holders may surrender zero-coupon subordinated notes for conversion during any period in which the rating assigned to the zero-coupon subordinated notes by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services is BB- or lower.

Borrowings under the Company’s revolving credit facility are subject to variable interest rates, unless fixed through interest rate swaps or other agreements.

The Company’s Ontario, Canada consolidated joint venture operates in Canada and, accordingly, the earnings and cash flow generated from the Ontario operation are subject to foreign currency exchange risk.

The Alberta, Canada joint venture partnership operates in Canada and remits the Company’s share of partnership income in Canadian dollars. Accordingly, the cash flow received from this affiliate is subject to foreign currency exchange risk.

Item 8.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Reference is made to the Index on Page F-1 of the Financial Report included herein.

Item 9.

CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Not Applicable.

Item 9A.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

As of the end of the period covered by this report, the Company carried out an evaluation under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended). Based upon this evaluation, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this annual report.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There was no change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) during the most recently completed fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Report of Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

The Company excluded its wholly-owned subsidiary, Esoterix Genetic Laboratories, LLC (dba Genzyme Genetics), from its assessment of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010 because its control over this operation was acquired by the Company in a purchase business combination during 2010. The total assets and total revenues of Esoterix Genetic Laboratories, LLC (dba Genzyme Genetics) represented 15.5% and 0.7%, respectively, of the related consolidated financial statement amounts as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company's management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

The internal control over financial reporting at the Company was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that:

·	pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company;
·	provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America;
·	provide reasonable assurance that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in accordance with authorization of management and directors of the Company; and
·	provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of assets that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.

The Company's management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010. Management based this assessment on criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting described in “Internal Control - Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission ("COSO"). Based on this assessment, the Company's management determined that, as of December 31, 2010, the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting. Management reviewed the results of its assessment with the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, who audited and reported on the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in this annual report, also audited the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010 as stated in its report, which is included herein immediately preceding the Company’s audited financial statements.

Item 9B.

OTHER INFORMATION

Not Applicable.

PART III

Item 10.

DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS and CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The information required by the item regarding directors is incorporated by reference to the Company’s Definitive Proxy Statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held in 2011 (the "2011 Proxy Statement") under the caption "Election of Directors." Information regarding executive officers is incorporated by reference to the Company’s 2011 Proxy Statement under the caption "Executive Officers."

Information concerning the Company’s Audit Committee and regarding compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act responsive to this item is incorporated by reference to the Company’s 2011 Proxy Statement under the captions “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” and “Board of Directors and its Committees – Audit Committee.”

Code of Ethics, Experts on Audit Committee

In October 2002, the Board of Directors adopted an updated set of Corporate Governance Guidelines (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines address a number of topics, including director independence, Board and Committee self-assessment, retirement, evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer, composition of the Board and succession planning. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews the Guidelines on a regular basis and any proposed additions or amendments to the Guidelines are submitted to the Board for its consideration.

In December 2003, the Board adopted the Company’s updated Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Code”). The Code defines standards of business conduct and ethics applicable to all directors, officers and employees of the Company, including its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, Controller and other senior financial officers (collectively, “Senior Officers”). The Code sets forth Company policies and expectations on a number of topics, including but not limited to, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, compliance with laws (including insider trading laws), preservation and use of Company assets, and business ethics. The Code also sets forth procedures for communicating and handling any potential conflict of interest (or the appearance of any conflict of interest) involving directors or executive officers, and for the confidential communication and handling of issues regarding accounting, internal controls and auditing matters. The Company annually reviews the Code and proposed additions or amendments are considered and subject to approval by the Board.

The Guidelines and the Code adopted by the Board of Directors are posted on the Company’s website at www.labcorp.com. In addition, any waivers for Senior Officers or amendments to the Code will be posted on the Company’s website.

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors further concluded that Wendy E. Lane and Kerrii B. Anderson have been identified as “audit committee financial experts” as defined by Commission rules and have the “accounting or related financial management expertise” required by the NYSE listing standards.

Item 11.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to the 2011 Proxy Statement under the captions "Executive Compensation” and “Director Compensation”.

Item 12.

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

See “Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements” for a discussion of the Company’s Stock Compensation Plans. Except for the above referenced footnote, the information called for by this Item is incorporated by reference to information in the 2011 Proxy Statement under the captions “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” and “Equity Compensation Plan Information”.

Item 13.

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS, RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to information in the 2011 Proxy Statement under the captions “Election of Directors” and “Related Party Transactions”.

Item 14

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to the 2011 Proxy Statement under the caption "Principal Accountant Fees and Services."

PART IV

Item 15.

EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

(a)	List of documents filed as part of this Report:

	(1)	Consolidated Financial Statements and Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm included herein:

		See Index on page F-1

	(2)	Financial Statement Schedules:

		See Index on page F-1

		All other schedules are omitted as they are inapplicable or the required information is furnished in the Consolidated Financial Statements or notes thereto.

	(3)	Index to and List of Exhibits

		Exhibits:

Exhibits 10.1 through 10.24 and 10.26 through 10.31 are management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements.

1.1

Underwriting Agreement, dated November 16, 2010 between Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. as representative of the several Underwriters trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 19, 2010).

2.1	Asset Purchase Agreement by and among Genzyme Corporation and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings dated as of September 13, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 16, 2010).
3.1	Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company dated May 24, 2001 (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-3, filed with the Commission on October 19, 2001, File No. 333-71896).
3.2	Amended and Restated By-Laws of the Company dated March 25, 2008 (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed with the Commission on March 31, 2008).
4.1	Specimen of the Company’s Common Stock Certificate (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001).
4.2	Rights Agreement dated December 13, 2001 between the Company and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, as rights Agent (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form 8-A, filed with the Commission on December 21, 2001, File No. 001-11353).
4.3	Indenture dated as of January 31, 2003 between the Company and Wachovia Bank, National Association, as trustee (incorporated herein by reference to the January 31, 2003 Form 8-K, filed with the Commission on February 3, 2003).
4.4	Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of January 28, 2003 between the Company and the Initial Purchasers (incorporated herein by reference to the January 31, 2003 Form 8-K, filed with the Commission on February 3, 2003).
4.5	Indenture dated as of December 5, 2005, between the Company and The Bank of New York, as trustee (Senior Debt Securities) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated December 14, 2005).
4.6	Indenture, dated as of October 23, 2006, between the Company and The Bank of New York, as trustee, including the Form of Global Note attached as Exhibit A thereto (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 24, 2006).
4.7	Indenture, dated as of November 19, 2010, between the Company and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 19, 2010).
4.8	First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 19, 2010, between the Company and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, including the form of the 2016 Notes (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 19, 2010).
4.9	Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 19, 2010, between the Company and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, including the form of the 2020 Notes (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 19, 2010).
10.1	National Health Laboratories Incorporated Pension Equalization Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992).
10.2	Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings amended and restated new Pension Equalization Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company's Quarterly Report for the period ended September 30, 2004).
10.3	First Amendment to the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings amended and restated new Pension Equalization Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company's Quarterly Report for the period ended September 30, 2004).
10.4	Second Amendment to the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings amended and restated new Pension Equalization Plan. (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004).
10.5	National Health Laboratories 1988 Stock Option Plan, as amended (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1, filed with the Commission on July 9, 1990, File No. 33-35782).

10.6	National Health Laboratories 1994 Stock Option Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8, filed with the Commission on August 12, 1994, File No. 33-55065).
10.7	Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Senior Executive Transition Policy (incorporated herein by reference to the Company's Quarterly Report for the period ended June 30, 2004).
10.8	Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 1995 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors dated September 26, 1995 (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-8, filed with the Commission on September 26, 1995, File No. 33-62913).
10.9	Amendment to the 1995 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s 1997 Annual Proxy Statement, filed with the Commission on June 6, 1997).
10.10	Amendment to the 1995 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors (incorporated herein by reference to Annex I of the Company’s 2001 Annual Proxy Statement, filed with the Commission on April 25, 2001).
10.11	Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (incorporated herein by reference to Annex I of the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the Commission on December 13, 1996, File No. 333-17793).
10.12	Amendments to the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-8, filed with the Commission on January 10, 2000, File No. 333-94331).
10.13	Amendments to the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-8, filed with the Commission on May 26, 2004, File No. 333-115905).
10.14	Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Amended and Restated 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated herein by reference to Annex I of the Company’s 1999 Annual Proxy Statement filed with the Commission of May 3, 1999).
10.15	Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-8, filed with the Commission on June 5, 2000, File No. 333-38608).
10.16	Amendments to the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-8, filed with the Commission on June 19, 2002, File No. 333-90764).
10.17	Dynacare Inc., Amended and Restated Employee Stock Option Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-8, filed with the Commission on August 7, 2002, File No. 333-97745).
10.18	DIANON Systems, Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, DIANON Systems, Inc. 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, DIANON Systems, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, DIANON Systems, Inc. 2001 Stock Incentive Plan, and UroCor, Inc. Second Amended and Restated 1992 Stock Option Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8, filed with the Commission on January 21, 2003, File No. 333-102602).
10.19	Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004).
10.20	First Amendment to the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004).
10.21	Third Amendment to the Laboratory Corporation of America Amended and Restated New Pension Equalization Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report for the period ended June 30, 2005).
10.22	Second Amendment to the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Quarterly Report for the period ended June 30, 2005).

10.23	Third Amendment to the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006).
10.24	Consulting Agreement between Thomas P. Mac Mahon and the Company dated July 20, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 21, 2006).
10.25	$1 Billion Credit Agreement dated as of October 26, 2007, among the Company, the lenders named therein and Credit Suisse, as Administrative Agent, and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, as Bookrunner and Lead Arranger (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.31 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007).
10.26	Fourth Amendment to the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007).
10.27	Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 2008 Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 7, 2008).
10.28	Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Amended and Restated Master Senior Executive Severance Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009).
10.29	Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Master Senior Executive Change in Control Severance Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009).
10.30	First Amendment to the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Master Senior Executive Change in Control Severance Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010).
10.31	Second Amendment to the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Master Senior Executive Change in Control Severance Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010).
12.1*	Ratio of earnings to fixed charges

21*	List of Subsidiaries of the Company
23.1*	Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm
24.1*	Power of Attorney of Thomas P. Mac Mahon
24.2*	Power of Attorney of Kerrii B. Anderson
24.3*	Power of Attorney of Jean-Luc Bélingard
24.4*	Power of Attorney of N. Anthony Coles, M.D.
24.5*	Power of Attorney of Wendy E. Lane
24.6*	Power of Attorney of Robert E. Mittelstaedt, Jr.
24.7*	Power of Attorney of Arthur H. Rubenstein, MBBCh
24.8*	Power of Attorney of M. Keith Weikel, Ph.D.
24.9*	Power of Attorney of R. Sanders Williams, M.D.
31.1*	Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)
31.2*	Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)
32*	Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
101**	Interactive Data File

*	Filed herewith
**	IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEMPORARY HARDSHIP EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY RULE 201 OF REGULATION S-T, THE DATE BY WHICH THE INTERACTIVE DATA FILE IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED HAS BEEN EXTENDED BY SIX BUSINESS DAYS.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS

Registrant

	By:	/s/ DAVID P. KING
		David P. King
		Chairman of the Board, President
		and Chief Executive Officer
Dated: March 1, 2011

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant on March 1, 2011 in the capacities indicated.

Signature		Title


/s/ DAVID P. KING		Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
David P. King		Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ WILLIAM B. HAYES		Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
William B. Hayes		Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial
		Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

/s/ THOMAS P. MAC MAHON*		Director
Thomas P. Mac Mahon

/s/ KERRII B. ANDERSON*		Director
Kerrii B. Anderson

/s/ JEAN-LUC BÉLINGARD*		Director
Jean-Luc Bélingard

/s/ N. ANTHONY COLES, M.D.*		Director
N. Anthony Coles, M.D.

/s/ WENDY E. LANE*		Director
Wendy E. Lane

/s/ ROBERT E. MITTELSTAEDT, JR.*		Director
Robert E. Mittelstaedt, Jr.

/s/ ARTHUR H. RUBENSTEIN, MBBCH*		Director
Arthur H. Rubenstein, MBBCh

/s/ M. KEITH WEIKEL, PH.D.*		Director
M. Keith Weikel, Ph.D.

/s/ R. SANDERS WILLIAMS, M.D.*		Director
R. Sanders Williams, M.D.

* F. Samuel Eberts III, by his signing his name hereto, does hereby sign this report on behalf of the directors of the Registrant after whose typed names asterisks appear, pursuant to powers of attorney duly executed by such directors and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

By:	/s/ F. SAMUEL EBERTS III
	F. Samuel Eberts III
	Attorney-in-fact

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS AND SUBSIDIARIES

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AND SCHEDULE

	Page

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm	F-2

Consolidated Financial Statements:

Consolidated Balance Sheets	F-3

Consolidated Statements of Operations	F-4

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders' Equity	F-5

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	F-6

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements	F-7

Financial Statement Schedule:

II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts and Reserves	F-34

F-1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings:

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the accompanying index presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control–Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company’s management is responsible for these financial statements and financial statement schedule, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the Report of Management on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements and financial statement schedule and on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our integrated audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

As described in the Report of Management on Internal Controls over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A, management has excluded Genzyme Genetics from its assessment of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010 because it was acquired by the Company in a purchase business combination during 2010. We have also excluded Genzyme Genetics from our audit of internal control over financial reporting. Genzyme Genetics is a wholly-owned subsidiary whose total assets and total revenues represent 15.5% and 0.7%, respectively, of the related consolidated financial statement amounts as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Greensboro, North Carolina

March 1, 2011

F-2

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Information

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In Millions)

	December 31,			December 31,
	2010			2009
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	230.7		$	148.5
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful
accounts of $149.2 and $173.1 at December 31,
2010 and 2009, respectively		655.6			574.2
Supplies inventories		103.4			90.0
Prepaid expenses and other		95.7			80.1
Deferred income taxes		58.4			42.8
Total current assets		1,143.8			935.6

Property, plant and equipment, net		586.9			500.8
Goodwill, net		2,601.3			1,897.1
Intangible assets, net		1,674.1			1,342.2
Joint venture partnerships and equity method investments		78.5			71.4
Other assets, net		103.2			90.7
Total assets	$	6,187.8		$	4,837.8

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	257.8		$	183.1
Accrued expenses and other		352.9			275.7
Noncontrolling interest		148.1			142.4
Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt		361.7			417.2
Total current liabilities		1,120.5			1,018.4

Long-term debt, less current portion		1,826.7			977.2
Deferred income taxes and other tax liabilities		602.3			577.7
Other liabilities		151.4			158.4
Total liabilities		3,700.9			2,731.7

Commitments and contingent liabilities		--			--
Noncontrolling interest		20.6			--

Shareholders’ equity
Common stock, 102.4 and 105.3 shares outstanding at
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively		12.2			12.5
Additional paid-in capital		53.9			36.7
Retained earnings		3,246.6			2,927.9
Less common stock held in treasury		(934.9	)		(932.5	)
Accumulated other comprehensive income		88.5			61.5
Total shareholders’ equity		2,466.3			2,106.1
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	6,187.8		$	4,837.8

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

F-3

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In Millions, Except Per Share Data)

	Years Ended December 31,
	2010		2009		2008

Net sales	$	5,003.9	$	4,694.7	$	4,505.2

Cost of sales		2,906.1		2,723.8		2,631.4

Gross profit		2,097.8		1,970.9		1,873.8

Selling, general and administrative expenses		1,034.3		958.9		935.1
Amortization of intangibles and other assets		72.7		62.6		57.9
Restructuring and other special charges		12.0		13.5		37.9

Operating income		978.8