Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may be involved as a defendant in legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the Company has adequate legal defense on all legal actions, and the results of any such proceedings would not materially impact the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company. The Company provides disclosure and records loss contingencies in accordance with the loss contingencies accounting guidance. In accordance with such guidance, the Company establishes accruals for such matters when potential losses become probable and can be reasonably estimated. If the Company determines that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, the Company discloses the possible loss in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. California Labor Actions On March 30, 2023, Paul Lowe v. Rapid Reliable Testing, LLC, et al. was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Lowe Action”). The complaint alleges various wage and hour claims on behalf of the plaintiff and a putative class. The complaint also alleges a derivative class claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and seeks to bring a representative action pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). In addition, Corielyn Marie Hall v. Rapid Reliable Testing, LLC, et al. involves two separate actions filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court by plaintiff Corielyn Hall (collectively with the Lowe Action, the “California Labor Actions”). The first action is a class complaint filed on December 14, 2023. Similar to the Lowe Action, it alleges various wage and hour claims on behalf of the plaintiff and a putative class and asserts a derivative class claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The second action brought by Corielyn Hall was filed on February 20, 2024 and brings claims under PAGA. Given the overlapping claims and time periods presented in the California Labor Actions, in an effort to reach a global resolution, these actions were mediated concurrently on February 5, 2025. The parties reached a resolution, in principle, at the mediation. At the time of this filing, the parties have finalized but not yet executed the settlement documents memorializing that resolution. Stockholder Actions On October 27, 2023, Joe Naclerio, individually and purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its then-Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer, current Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On January 17, 2024, the Court appointed the Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System as the Lead Plaintiff. On March 18, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company, its now former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On June 21, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 28, 2025, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. On April 25, 2025, the remaining defendants answered the complaint. Due to the early stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. On May 13, 2025 and June 3, 2025, respectively, two derivative actions were filed nominally on behalf of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Ryne Shetterly and Salma Daboul against certain current and former members of the Board of Directors, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel, along with two former Chief Executive Officers, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and its Executive Vice President of Strategy. Both complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other related claims purportedly on behalf of the Company based on substantially similar factual allegations to those asserted in the securities class action matter discussed above, seeking various forms of monetary and injunctive relief. On August 5, 2025, the two derivative actions were consolidated, the complaint filed in the Daboul action was deemed the operative complaint in the consolidated action, and the Court set a briefing schedule for the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims. Cybersecurity Action On August 22, 2024, Maria Ballesteros, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Ambulnz NY, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company (“Ambulnz NY”), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York arising from a data security incident that the Company experienced in April 2024 (the “Cybersecurity Action”). The Cybersecurity Action alleged negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the California Privacy Act and the California Consumer Records Act, and sought various forms of monetary and injunctive relief. Before Ambulnz NY responded to the complaint, the parties engaged in early mediation that resulted in a settlement in principle. The plaintiff subsequently dismissed the case from the Southern District of New York without prejudice to provide the parties time to finalize the settlement and for eventual re-filing in Florida state court. The parties have since entered into a formal settlement agreement, and the plaintiff re-filed the case in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida on March 21, 2025. The plaintiff also filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 24, 2025. On May 2, 2025, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement agreement, directing notice to the settlement class and scheduling a final fairness hearing for August 22, 2025. The settlement class members will have a period of time to file a claim for the benefits under the settlement before final approval is sought. The settlement is on a claims-made basis, so the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount that will be paid at this time. However, the Company maintains cybersecurity insurance coverage to limit its exposure to losses relating to cybersecurity incidents, including costs arising from litigation such as the Cybersecurity Action and the expected costs of the settlement.

From time to time, the Company may be involved as a defendant in legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the Company has adequate legal defense on all legal actions, and the results of any such proceedings would not materially impact the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company. The Company provides disclosure and records loss contingencies in accordance with the loss contingencies accounting guidance. In accordance with such guidance, the Company establishes accruals for such matters when potential losses become probable and can be reasonably estimated. If the Company determines that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, the Company discloses the possible loss in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

On March 30, 2023, Paul Lowe v. Rapid Reliable Testing, LLC, et al. was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Lowe Action”). The complaint alleges various wage and hour claims on behalf of the plaintiff and a putative class. The complaint also alleges a derivative class claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and seeks to bring a representative action pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).

In addition, Corielyn Marie Hall v. Rapid Reliable Testing, LLC, et al. involves two separate actions filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court by plaintiff Corielyn Hall (collectively with the Lowe Action, the “California Labor Actions”). The first action is a class complaint filed on December 14, 2023. Similar to the Lowe Action, it alleges various wage and hour claims on behalf of the plaintiff and a putative class and asserts a derivative class claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The second action brought by Corielyn Hall was filed on February 20, 2024 and brings claims under PAGA.

Given the overlapping claims and time periods presented in the California Labor Actions, in an effort to reach a global resolution, these actions were mediated concurrently on February 5, 2025. The parties reached a resolution, in principle, at the mediation. At the time of this filing, the parties have finalized but not yet executed the settlement documents memorializing that resolution.

On October 27, 2023, Joe Naclerio, individually and purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its then-Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer, current Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On January 17, 2024, the Court appointed the Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System as the Lead Plaintiff. On March 18, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company, its now former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On June 21, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 28, 2025, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. On April 25, 2025, the remaining defendants answered the complaint. Due to the early stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

On May 13, 2025 and June 3, 2025, respectively, two derivative actions were filed nominally on behalf of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Ryne Shetterly and Salma Daboul against certain current and former members of the Board of Directors, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel, along with two former Chief Executive Officers, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and its Executive Vice President of Strategy. Both complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other related claims purportedly on behalf of the Company based on substantially similar factual allegations to those asserted in the securities class action matter discussed above, seeking various forms of monetary and injunctive relief. On August 5, 2025, the two derivative actions were consolidated, the complaint filed in the Daboul action was deemed the operative complaint in the consolidated action, and the Court set a briefing schedule for the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims.

On August 22, 2024, Maria Ballesteros, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Ambulnz NY, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company (“Ambulnz NY”), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York arising from a data security incident that the Company experienced in April 2024 (the “Cybersecurity Action”). The Cybersecurity Action alleged negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the California Privacy Act and the California Consumer Records Act, and sought various forms of monetary and injunctive relief. Before Ambulnz NY responded to the complaint, the parties engaged in early mediation that resulted in a settlement in principle. The plaintiff subsequently dismissed the case from the Southern District of New York without prejudice to provide the parties time to finalize the settlement and for eventual re-filing in Florida state court. The parties have since entered into a formal settlement agreement, and the plaintiff re-filed the case in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida on March 21, 2025. The plaintiff also filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 24, 2025.