UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

Form 10-Q/A

(Amendment No. 1)

Commission file number 1-7293

TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

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, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý  No o

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).     Large accelerated filer ý Accelerated filer o          Non-accelerated filer o

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes o No ý

As of March 31, 2005, there were 468,563,558 shares of common stock outstanding.

Explanatory Note

We are filing this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A to Tenet Healthcare Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, which was originally filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on May 3, 2005 (the “Original Form 10-Q”), to reflect the restatements of our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2005 and our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, Comprehensive Income (Loss) and Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related notes.

We reported the decision to restate this information in a Current Report on Form 8-K/A, which we filed with the SEC on March 9, 2006. The decision to restate was based on the findings of an independent investigation conducted by the audit committee of our board of directors. Part I of this Form 10-Q/A contains more information about these restatements in “Note 14 - Restatement of Financial Statements,” which accompanies the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 1.

Although this Form 10-Q/A contains the Original Form 10-Q in its entirety, it amends and restates only Items 1 and 2 of Part I and Exhibits 31(a), 31(b) and 32, referred to in Item 6 of Part II, of the Original Form 10-Q, in each case solely as a result of and to reflect the restatements. No other information in the Original Form 10-Q is amended hereby. This Form 10-Q/A has been repaginated and references to “Form 10-Q” have been revised to refer to “Form 10-Q/A” as applicable.

Except for the amended information referred to above, this Form 10-Q/A continues to present information as of May 3, 2005, and we have not updated or modified the disclosures herein for events that occurred after that date. Events occurring after the filing date of the Original Form 10-Q, and other disclosures necessary to reflect subsequent events, have not been addressed other than in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “2005 Form 10-K”), which we filed with the SEC on March 9, 2006.  The 2005 Form 10-K includes our restated Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2004. All balances as of December 31, 2004 presented in this report reflect the restated amounts as presented in the 2005 Form 10-K. For further information on the restated Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2004, refer to the audited Consolidated Financial Statements and notes in the 2005 Form 10-K.

i

TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii

PART I.

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

Dollars in Millions

See accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

1

TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

Dollars in Millions,

Except Per-Share Amounts

(Unaudited)

See accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

2

TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

Dollars in Millions

(Unaudited)

See accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

3

TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

Dollars in Millions

(Unaudited)

See accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

4

TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 1  BASIS OF PRESENTATION

This amended quarterly report for Tenet Healthcare Corporation (together with our subsidiaries, referred to as “Tenet,” the “Company,” “we” or “us”) supplements our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (“Annual Report”) that we filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 8, 2005.   As permitted by the SEC for interim reporting, we have omitted certain footnotes and disclosures that substantially duplicate those in our Annual Report. For further information, refer to the audited consolidated financial statements and footnotes included in our Annual Report.

We are an investor-owned health care services company whose subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively, “subsidiaries”) operate general hospitals and related health care facilities, and hold investments in other companies (including health care companies). At March 31, 2005, our subsidiaries operated 74 general hospitals, including five hospitals that are part of discontinued operations not yet divested, serving urban and rural communities in 13 states. We also owned or operated various related health care facilities, including a small number of rehabilitation hospitals, a specialty hospital, skilled nursing facilities and medical office buildings—all of which are located on, or nearby, one of our general hospital campuses; and physician practices, captive insurance companies and various other ancillary health care businesses (including outpatient surgery centers and occupational and rural health care clinics).

Certain prior-period balances in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been reclassified to conform to the current period’s presentation of financial information. These reclassifications for discontinued operations as described in Note 3 have no impact on total assets, liabilities, shareholders’ equity, net loss or cash flows. Unless otherwise indicated, all financial and statistical information included herein relates to our continuing operations, with dollar amounts expressed in millions (except per share amounts).

Although the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and related footnotes within this document are unaudited, we believe all adjustments considered necessary for fair presentation have been included. In preparing our financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, we must use estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying notes. We regularly evaluate the accounting policies and estimates we use. In general, we base the estimates on historical experience and on assumptions that we believe to be reasonable, given the particular circumstances in which we operate. Actual results may vary from those estimates.

Operating results for the three-month period ended March 31, 2005 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the full fiscal year 2005. Reasons for this include, but are not limited to, overall revenue and cost trends, particularly trends in patient accounts receivable collectibility and associated provisions for doubtful accounts; the timing and magnitude of price changes; fluctuations in contractual allowances, including the impact of the discounting components of our Compact with Uninsured Patients (“Compact”); changes in Medicare regulations; levels of malpractice expense and settlement trends; impairment of long-lived assets and goodwill; restructuring charges; litigation and investigation costs; acquisitions and dispositions of facilities and other assets; income tax rates and valuation allowances; the timing and amounts of stock option grants to employees, directors and others; and changes in occupancy levels and patient volumes. Factors that affect patient volumes and, thereby, our results of operations at our hospitals and related health care facilities include, but are not limited to (1) unemployment levels, (2) the business environment of local communities, (3) the number of uninsured and underinsured individuals in local communities treated at our hospitals, (4) seasonal cycles of illness, (5) climate and weather conditions, (6) physician recruitment, retention and attrition, (7) local health care competitors, (8) managed care contract negotiations or terminations, (9) unfavorable publicity, which impacts relationships with physicians and patients and (10) factors relating to the timing of elective procedures.  These considerations apply to year-to-year comparisons as well.

NOTE 2  ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS

During the second quarter of 2004, we modified our process for estimating and writing down self-pay accounts to their net realizable value.  This change in how we estimate the net realizable value of self-pay accounts was primarily attributable to the continued increase in numbers of uninsured and underinsured patients and is more fully described in the Annual Report.

Also in the second quarter of 2004, we began the implementation of our Compact.  Our Compact is designed to offer managed care-style discounts to most uninsured patients, which enables us to offer lower rates to those patients who historically

5

have been charged standard gross charges. A significant portion of those charges had previously been written down in our provision for doubtful accounts. Under the Compact, the discount offered to uninsured patients is recognized as a contractual allowance, which reduces net operating revenues at the time the self-pay accounts are recorded and should reduce our provision for doubtful accounts in the future.  The discounts for uninsured patients were in effect at 57 of our hospitals by March 31, 2005. We are evaluating and addressing legal and other issues that may limit our ability to implement the discounting components of the Compact at our hospitals in Texas.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2005, there were $155 million of discounts recorded as contractual allowances on self-pay accounts under the Compact. Prior to implementation of the Compact, a large portion of these discounts would have been recognized in our provision for doubtful accounts if the accounts were not collected.

We also provide care without charge to certain patients who meet certain financial or economic criteria. Our policy is to not pursue collection of amounts determined to qualify as charity care; accordingly, we do not report them in net operating revenues or in provision for doubtful accounts. For the three months ended March 31, 2005, $155 million in charity care and indigent care gross charges were excluded from net operating revenues and provision for doubtful accounts compared to $148 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004.

Our current total estimated collection rates on managed care accounts and self-pay accounts are approximately 95% and 16%, respectively, which includes collections from point-of-service through collections by our in-house collection agency or external collection agencies or vendors.

Accounts that are collected through regional or hospital-based business offices are maintained on the hospital’s books and reflected in patient accounts receivable with an allowance for doubtful accounts established based on the estimated net realizable value (see Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Estimates in our Annual Report).

Accounts assigned to a collection agency are written off and excluded from patient accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts; however, an estimate of future recoveries from all accounts in collection is determined based on historical experience and recorded as a component of accounts receivable, less allowance for doubtful accounts, in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The principal components of accounts receivable are shown in the table below:

NOTE 3  DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

In January 2004, we announced a major restructuring of our operations involving the proposed divestiture of 27 general hospitals (19 in California and eight others in Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri and Texas). By focusing our financial and management resources on our remaining 69 general hospitals, including two recently constructed in Texas and Tennessee, we expect to create a stronger company with greater potential for long-term growth. As of March 31, 2005, we had completed the divestiture of 22 of the 27 facilities, including four hospitals in Orange County, California sold on March 8, 2005. The four hospitals are Chapman Medical Center, Coastal Communities Hospital, Western Medical Center—Anaheim and Western Medical Center—Santa Ana. Net after-tax proceeds, including the liquidation of working capital, for these four hospitals are

6

estimated to be approximately $80 million.  We recorded a gain of approximately $20 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2005 on the sale of these four facilities.  Discussions and negotiations with potential buyers for the remaining five hospitals slated for divestiture were ongoing as of March 31, 2005.

In connection with divestiture actions, as described in the Annual Report, we have classified the results of operations of the following hospitals as discontinued operations for all periods presented in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”:

•                  The 14 general hospitals whose intended divestiture we announced in March 2003, all of which were sold or closed prior to March 31, 2004,

•                  The 27 general hospitals whose intended divestiture we announced in January 2004, including Doctors Medical Center—San Pablo, in San Pablo, California, a leased hospital, which was classified in discontinued operations when its lease expired in July 2004,

•                  Our general hospital in Barcelona, Spain, which we sold in May 2004,

•                  Redding Medical Center, in Redding, California, of which we sold certain hospital assets in July 2004,

•                  Century City Hospital in Los Angeles, California, a previously leased hospital that we no longer operated by the end of April 2004,

•                  Medical College of Pennsylvania Hospital, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sold in September 2004,

•                  NorthShore Psychiatric Hospital, in Slidell, Louisiana, which was closed in September 2004, and

•                  Suburban Medical Center, in Paramount, California, a previously leased hospital that we no longer operated by the end of October 2004.

We have classified $52 million and $101 million of the assets of the hospitals included in discontinued operations as “held for sale” in current assets in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively. These assets consist primarily of property and equipment, including the associated deferred tax assets, net of valuation allowance, and are recorded at the lower of the asset’s carrying amount or its fair value less costs to sell. The fair value estimates were derived from independent appraisals, established market values of comparable assets, or internal calculations of estimated future net cash flows. Because we do not intend to sell the accounts receivable of the asset group, these receivables, less the related allowance for doubtful accounts, are included in our consolidated net accounts receivable in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. At March 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, the net accounts receivable for these hospitals was $77 million and $203 million, respectively.

We recorded $7 million of impairment and restructuring charges in discontinued operations during the quarter ended March 31, 2005 consisting primarily of $6 million for the write-down of long-lived assets, $4 million in employee severance and retention costs and a $3 million reduction in reserves recorded in prior periods.

We recorded $137 million of impairment and restructuring charges in discontinued operations during the quarter ended March 31, 2004 consisting primarily of $56 million for the write-down of long-lived assets, $32 million for the write-down of goodwill to their estimated fair values, less estimated costs to sell, $1 million in employee severance and retention costs and $48 million in costs related to an academic affiliation agreement with Drexel University College of Medicine in Pennsylvania. In connection with our divestiture of Medical College of Pennsylvania Hospital on September 1, 2004, we are contractually responsible for certain university costs through December 2005.

7

Net operating revenues and loss before taxes reported in discontinued operations for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004 are as follows:

As we move forward with our previously announced divestiture plans, we may incur additional asset impairment and restructuring charges in future periods.

NOTE 4  IMPAIRMENT AND RESTRUCTURING CHARGES

During the three months ended March 31, 2005, we recorded restructuring charges of $9 million consisting of $6 million in employee severance, benefits and relocation costs and $3 million in non-cash stock option modification costs related to terminated employees.  During the three months ended March 31, 2004, we recorded restructuring charges of $9 million for severance and related costs.

No impairment charge was recorded in the first quarter of 2005.  Based on future financial trends and the possible impact of negative trends on our future outlook, further impairments of long-lived assets and goodwill may occur, and we will incur additional restructuring charges.

The table below is a reconciliation of beginning and ending liability balances in connection with restructuring charges recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2005 in continuing and discontinued operations:

The above liability balances are included in other current liabilities and other long-term liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other items primarily include restructuring charges or reductions of reserves that are recorded in accounts other than these liabilities, such as the charges associated with stock option modifications. Cash payments to be applied against these accruals at March 31, 2005 are expected to be approximately $55 million in 2005 and $45 million thereafter.

8

NOTE 5  LONG-TERM DEBT AND LEASE OBLIGATIONS

The table below shows our long-term debt as of March 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004:

(1)               Includes $1 million and $5 million at March 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively, related to the general hospitals held for sale (see Note 3).

CREDIT AGREEMENTS

On December 31, 2004, we terminated our five-year revolving credit agreement and replaced it with a one-year letter of credit facility. The new facility provides for the issuance of up to $250 million in letters of credit and does not provide for any cash borrowings. The principal purpose of the new facility was to provide for the continuance of $216 million in letters of credit outstanding under the terminated revolving credit agreement at that time. The new facility was initially collateralized by the stock of certain of our subsidiaries and cash equal to 105% of the facility amount (approximately $263 million reflected as restricted cash on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets); however, in March 2005 the facility was amended to provide for the release of the liens on the stock of our subsidiaries any time after April 15, 2005, at our request, provided no default exists.  On April 19, 2005, the stock certificates were returned to us, and subsequently, termination notices for all liens were submitted to each state where liens were filed and are pending confirmation.  In accordance with the amendment, the termination date of the letter of credit facility was extended from December 31, 2005 to June 30, 2006.  The letter of credit facility contains customary affirmative and negative covenants that, among other requirements, limit (1) liens, (2) consolidations, mergers or the sale of all or substantially all assets unless no event of default exists, (3) subsidiary debt and (4) prepayment of debt. At March 31, 2005, outstanding letters of credit under the agreement totaled $216 million.

Loans under the previous credit agreement were unsecured and generally bore interest at a base rate equal to the prime rate or, if higher, the federal funds rate plus 0.5% or, at our option, an adjusted London Interbank Offered Rate plus an interest margin between 100 and 250 basis points. We paid the lenders an annual facility fee on the total loan commitment at rates between 50 and 57.5 basis points. The interest rate margins and the facility fee rates were based on our leverage covenant ratio (calculated as the ratio of consolidated total debt to operating income plus the sum of depreciation, amortization, impairment, other unusual charges, stock-based compensation expense, and losses from early extinguishment of debt). In consideration for amendments to the previous credit agreement in March 2004, we paid a one-time fee equal to 12.5 basis points. Also in connection with the amendment, we wrote off approximately $5 million in unamortized deferred loan fees in March 2004.

SENIOR NOTES AND SENIOR SUBORDINATED NOTES

In January 2005, we sold $800 million of senior notes with registration rights in a private placement. The senior notes bear interest at a rate of 9¼% per year and mature on February 1, 2015. The senior notes are redeemable, in whole or in part, at any time, at our option at the greater of par or a redemption price based on a spread over comparable securities. The senior notes are general unsecured senior obligations of Tenet and rank equally in right of payment with all of our other unsecured senior

9

indebtedness, but are effectively subordinated to any obligations under our letter of credit facility. On April 8, 2005, we filed with the SEC a Form S-4 registration statement to register the $800 million principal amount of 9¼% Senior Notes due 2015 to be issued and offered in exchange for the unregistered senior notes sold in January 2005.  The registration statement filed with the SEC has not yet become effective; therefore, these securities may not be sold nor may offers be accepted prior to the time the registration statement becomes effective.  The terms of the senior notes subject to the Form S-4 filed with the SEC are substantially similar to the terms of the unregistered senior notes we sold in January 2005.  The covenants governing the new issue are identical to the covenants for our other senior notes. The net proceeds from the sale of the senior notes were approximately $773 million after deducting discounts and related expenses. We used a portion of the proceeds in February 2005 for the early redemption of our remaining outstanding senior notes due in 2006 and 2007, resulting in a $15 million loss from early extinguishment of debt, and the balance of the proceeds for general corporate purposes.

LOAN COVENANTS

Our letter of credit facility or the indentures governing our senior notes contain affirmative, negative and financial covenants that have, among other requirements, limitations on (1) liens, (2) consolidations, merger or the sale of all or substantially all assets unless no event of default exists and (3) subsidiary debt.

As discussed in Note 10, the ultimate resolution of claims and lawsuits brought against us, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity, including the inability to make scheduled debt payments when they become due.

NOTE 6  STOCK BENEFIT PLANS

At March 31, 2005, there were 26,047,294 shares of common stock available under the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan for stock option grants and other incentive awards, including restricted stock units. Options generally have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the shares on the date of grant and generally expire 10 years from the date of grant. A restricted stock unit is a contractual right to receive one share of our common stock in the future. Restricted stock units cannot exceed 10% of the total grants under the plan.

On February 17, 2005, we granted 173,867 restricted stock units and options for 469,333 shares of stock to Trevor Fetter, our president and chief executive officer. The options were granted at an exercise price of $10.63 per share, the closing price of our common stock on that date. The estimated fair value of the options granted was $4.87 per share, and the fair value of the restricted stock units issued was $10.63 per share. Both the options and the restricted stock units vest one-third on each of the first three anniversary dates of the grant.

On February 16, 2005, we granted employee stock options for approximately 5.0 million shares of common stock at an exercise price of $10.52 per share, the closing price of our common stock on that date, and we also granted approximately 1.8 million restricted stock units. The estimated fair value of the options granted was $3.81 per share, and the fair value of the restricted stock units issued was $10.52 per share. Both the options and the restricted stock units vest one-third on each of the first three anniversary dates of the grant.

The following table summarizes information about our outstanding stock options at March 31, 2005:

As of March 31, 2005, approximately 91.3% of our outstanding options were held by current employees and approximately 8.7% were held by former employees. Approximately 16.7% of our outstanding options were in-the-money, that is,

10

they had an exercise price less than the $11.53 market price of our common stock on March 31, 2005, and approximately 83.3% were out-of-the-money, that is, they had an exercise price of more than $11.53, as shown in the table below:

The reconciliation below shows the changes to the options under our stock option plans for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004:

The estimated fair values of options we granted in the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, were $3.91 and $5.07, respectively. These were calculated, as of the date of each grant, using a Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following assumptions:

Expected volatility is derived using daily data drawn from five to seven years preceding the date of grant. The risk-free interest rates are based on the approximate yield on five-year and seven-year United States Treasury Bonds as of the date of grant. The expected lives are estimates of the number of years the options will be held before they are exercised. The valuation model was not adjusted for non-transferability, risk of forfeiture, or the vesting restrictions of the options—all of which would reduce the value if factored into the calculation.

During the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, we recorded total stock compensation expense of $16 million (including $3 million in non-cash stock option modification costs related to terminated employees classified as restructuring charges) and $20 million, respectively.

As disclosed in the proxy statement for our 2005 annual meeting of shareholders, which was filed with the SEC on April 15, 2005, at the annual meeting on May 26, 2005, our shareholders will be asked to approve a one-time exchange of certain outstanding employee stock options for a lesser number of restricted stock units.  The exchange opportunity would be offered only to certain current employees.  Our outside directors, four most senior executives and all former employees would not be eligible to participate.  We estimate that the current projected future non-cash compensation expense for unvested eligible options that could be exchanged is approximately $10 million.  If approved by our shareholders and assuming all eligible options are tendered for exchange, we estimate that the incremental non-cash compensation expense above the $10 million amount that will need to be recognized as compensation expense over the three year vesting period of the restricted stock units, will be approximately $19 million.

11

NOTE 7 SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY

The following table shows the changes in consolidated shareholders’ equity during the three months ended March 31, 2005 (dollars in millions, shares in thousands)

NOTE 8  OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

The table below shows the tax effect allocated to each component of other comprehensive income (loss) for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004:

NOTE 9  PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

Effective June 1, 2002, our hospitals’ self-insured retention per occurrence was increased to $2 million. In addition, a new wholly owned insurance subsidiary, The Healthcare Insurance Corporation, was formed to insure substantially all of our professional and general liability risks in excess of our self-insured retention. This subsidiary insures these risks under a claims-made policy with retentions per occurrence for the periods June 1, 2002 through May 31, 2003, and June 1, 2003 through May 31, 2004, of $3 million and $13 million, respectively. Risks in excess of these retentions are reinsured with major independent insurance companies. For the policy period June 1, 2004 through May 31, 2005, The Healthcare Insurance Corporation retains 17.5% of the first $10 million layer for reinsurance claims in excess of $15 million resulting in a maximum retention per occurrence of $14.75 million.

Through May 31, 2002, we insured substantially all of our professional and general liability risks in excess of self-insured retentions through Hospital Underwriting Group (“HUG”), our wholly owned insurance subsidiary, under a mature claims-made policy with a 10-year extended reporting period. Our hospitals’ self-insured retentions were $1 million per occurrence for fiscal years ended May 31, 1996 through May 31, 2002. HUG’s retentions covered the next $2 million per occurrence. Claims in excess of $3 million per occurrence were, in turn, reinsured with major independent insurance companies. In earlier policy periods, the self-insured retentions varied by hospital and by policy period from $500,000 to $5 million per occurrence.

12

For the periods June 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001, and June 1, 2001 through May 31, 2002, the policies written by HUG provided a maximum of $50 million of coverage for each policy period. As of March 31, 2005, HUG’s retained reserves for losses for the policy period ended May 31, 2001 were substantially close to reaching $50 million and for the policy period ended May 31, 2002, the retained reserves for losses reached the $50 million limit. However, the $50 million coverage limit each year is based on paid claims and the payments for each year have not yet reached the limits; therefore, the policies remain in effect. If the $50 million maximum amount is exhausted in either of these periods, we will be responsible for the first $25 million per occurrence for any subsequent claim paid that was applicable to the exhausted policy period before any excess professional and general liability insurance coverage would apply. Based on an actuarial review, we have provided for estimated losses that exceed our self-insured retention that will not be covered by the HUG policies.

As of March 31, 2005, we had purchased claims-made excess professional and general liability insurance policies from major independent insurance companies with a total aggregate limit of $275 million, which policies provide coverage if a claim exceeds $25 million. All reinsurance applicable to HUG or The Healthcare Insurance Corporation and any excess professional and general liability insurance we purchase are subject to policy aggregate limitations. We have sought recovery under our excess professional and general liability insurance policies for up to $275 million of our settlement, in December 2004, of the patient litigation related to Redding Medical Center, but our insurance carriers have raised objections to coverage under our policies. We are pursuing all means available against the insurance carriers in seeking coverage, including, where permitted, filing arbitration demands. Our excess professional and general liability insurance policies are single aggregate policies with each carrier. Any limits paid, in whole or in part, could deplete or reduce the excess limits available to pay any other claims applicable to this policy period.  If such policy aggregate limitations should be partially or fully exhausted in the future, our financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

In addition to the reserves recorded by the above insurance subsidiaries, we maintain self-insured retention reserves based on actuarial estimates for the portion of our professional and general liability risks, including incurred but not reported claims, for which we do not have insurance coverage (i.e., self-insured retentions). Reserves for losses and related expenses are estimated using expected loss-reporting patterns and are discounted to their present value under a risk-free rate approach using a Federal Reserve seven-year maturity composite rate of 4.0% at March 31, 2005 and 3.6% at March 31, 2004 based on our estimated claims payout period. If actual payments of claims materially exceed projected estimates of claims, our financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially adversely affected. Also, we provide letters of credit to our insurers as security under a selected number of programs to collateralize the deductible and self-insured retentions under our professional and general liability insurance programs, which can be drawn upon under certain circumstances. At March 31, 2005, the current and long-term professional and general liability reserves on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet were approximately $720 million.

Included in other operating expenses in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations is malpractice expense of $52 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and $62 million for the three months ended March 31, 2004.

NOTE 10  CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS

During the past several years, we have been subject to a significant number of claims and lawsuits. Some of these matters have recently been resolved, as described below and in our Annual Report. During the past several years, we also became the subject of federal and state agencies’ civil and criminal investigations and enforcement efforts, and received subpoenas and other requests from those agencies for information relating to a variety of subjects. While we cannot predict the likelihood of future claims or inquiries, we expect that new matters may be initiated against us from time to time.

The results of claims, lawsuits and investigations cannot be predicted, and it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, may have a material adverse effect on our business (both in the near and long term), financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Although we defend ourselves vigorously against claims and lawsuits and cooperate with investigations, these matters (1) could require us to pay substantial damages or amounts in judgments or settlements, which individually or in the aggregate could exceed amounts, if any, that may be recovered under our insurance policies where coverage applies and is available, (2) cause us to incur substantial expenses, (3) require significant time and attention from our management, and (4) could cause us to close or sell hospitals or otherwise modify the way we conduct business.

13

Where specific amounts are sought in any pending legal proceeding, those amounts are disclosed. For all other matters, where the possible loss or range of loss is reasonably estimable, an estimate is provided. Where no estimate is provided, the possible amount of loss is not reasonably estimable at this time. We presently cannot determine the ultimate resolution of all investigations and lawsuits.

Currently pending legal proceedings and investigations that are not in the ordinary course of business are principally related to the subject matters set forth below:

1.                                       Physician Relationships—We and certain of our subsidiaries are under heightened scrutiny with respect to our hospitals’ relationships with physicians. We believe that all aspects of our relationships with physicians are potentially under review. Proceedings in this area may be criminal, civil or both. After a federal grand jury indictment, Alvarado Hospital Medical Center, Inc. and Tenet HealthSystem Hospitals, Inc. (both Tenet subsidiaries) were put on trial in San Diego, California for allegedly illegal use of physician relocation, recruitment and consulting agreements. Although the trial judge declared a mistrial in the case after the members of the jury indicated that they were unable to reach a verdict, he subsequently set May 3, 2005 as the date a second trial will commence. Relocation agreements with physicians also are the subject of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, which served us and several of our subsidiaries with administrative subpoenas seeking documents related to physician relocation agreements at certain Southern California hospitals currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries, as well as summary information about physician relocation agreements related to all of our hospital subsidiaries. In addition, physician relationships and other matters at several hospitals in Southern California, Northern California, El Paso, Texas, New Orleans, Louisiana, St. Louis, Missouri and Memphis, Tennessee are the subject of ongoing federal investigations. Also, federal government agencies are conducting an investigation into agreements with the Women’s Cancer Center, a physician’s group not owned by us practicing in the field of gynecologic oncology, and certain physicians affiliated with that group. An administrative subpoena for documents from us and several of our hospital subsidiaries relating to that investigation was issued in April 2003. Further, in June 2003, the Florida Medicaid Fraud Control Unit issued an investigative subpoena to us seeking the production of employee personnel records and contracts with physicians, physician assistants, therapists and management companies from the Florida hospitals currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries. Since that time, we have received additional requests for information from that unit.

2.               Pricing—We and certain of our subsidiaries are currently subject to government investigations and civil lawsuits arising out of pricing strategies at facilities owned or formerly owned by our subsidiaries. In that regard, federal government agencies are investigating whether outlier payments made to certain hospitals owned or formerly owned by our subsidiaries were paid in accordance with Medicare laws and regulations, and whether we omitted material facts concerning our outlier revenue from our public filings. Also, we have been named as a defendant in two civil cases in federal district court in Miami, one filed by the Florida Attorney General and 13 Florida county hospital districts, health care systems and non-profit corporations and a second filed as a purported class action by Boca Raton Community Hospital, principally alleging that Tenet’s past pricing policies and receipt of Medicare outlier payments violated federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Acts, causing harm to the plaintiffs. We are vigorously defending the Company in these matters.

In addition, plaintiffs in California, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Missouri and Alabama have brought class action lawsuits against us and certain of our subsidiaries in courts in those states alleging that they paid unlawful or unfair prices for prescription drugs or medical products or procedures at hospitals or other medical facilities currently or formerly operated by our subsidiaries. In connection with the California action, on March 14, 2005, we received preliminary court approval of a settlement that should be nationwide in effect. As part of the settlement, we have made no admission of wrongdoing and we continue to vigorously deny the allegations made by plaintiffs in these actions. The settlement has two primary components: (1) injunctive relief governing our conduct prospectively for a period of four years, and (2) retrospective relief, including restitution and discounting of outstanding unpaid bills, for covered patients who were treated at our hospitals during the settlement class period (June 15, 1999 to December 31, 2004). We have also agreed to make a $4 million charitable contribution to a health-care-related charity specified by plaintiffs’ counsel. At March 31, 2005, we had an accrual of $30 million, recorded in prior periods, as a minimum liability to address the potential resolution of these cases.

3.                                       Securities and Shareholder Matters—A consolidated class action lawsuit is pending in federal court in Los Angeles, California against Tenet and certain of our former officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. In addition, a number of shareholder derivative actions have been filed against certain current and former members of our board of

14

directors and former members of senior management by shareholders. These actions purport to allege various causes of action on behalf of Tenet and for our benefit, including breach of fiduciary duty, insider trading and other causes of action. The shareholder derivative actions are pending in federal court in Los Angeles, and in state court in Santa Barbara, California.

In addition, the SEC is conducting a formal investigation of Tenet and certain of our current and former directors and officers, whom the SEC did not specifically identify, with respect to whether the disclosures in our financial reports relating to Medicare outlier reimbursements and stop-loss payments under managed care contracts were misleading or otherwise inadequate, and whether there was any improper trading in our securities by certain of our current and former directors and officers. On April 27, 2005, we announced that we had received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC in connection with this investigation, and that we had been informed that Wells Notices had also been issued to certain former senior executives of the Company who left their positions in 2002 and 2003. A Wells Notice indicates that the SEC’s staff intends to recommend that the agency bring a civil enforcement action against the recipients for possible violations of federal securities laws. Recipients of Wells Notices have the opportunity to respond before the SEC’s staff makes its formal recommendation on whether any action should be brought. We are continuing to cooperate with the SEC with respect to this matter.

4.                                       Redding Medical Center, Inc.—We are subject to a qui tam action brought under California Insurance Code Section 1871.7 et seq., which allows “interested persons” to file sealed complaints for allegedly fraudulent billings to private insurers. The complaint generally alleges that false claims for payments were made to private insurers for allegedly medically unnecessary procedures performed at Redding Medical Center (of which we sold certain hospital assets in July 2004). Both the California Department of Insurance and the District Attorney of Shasta County, California have declined to intervene in this action. The action was unsealed in October 2004 and, subsequently, was served on the defendants. No discovery has taken place, and no trial date has been set.

5.                                       Medicare Coding—The Medicare coding practices at hospitals owned or formerly owned by our subsidiaries are also under increased scrutiny. The federal government in January 2003 filed a civil lawsuit against us and certain of our subsidiaries relating to hospital billings to Medicare for inpatient stays reimbursed pursuant to four particular diagnosis-related groups. The government in this lawsuit has alleged violations of the False Claims Act and various common law claims. At March 31, 2005, we had an accrual of $34 million, recorded in prior years, for this matter. In addition, we are cooperating with an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California into coding, billing and cost reporting relating to the Comprehensive Cancer Center at our Desert Regional Medical Center.

6.             Other Matters

(a)          On October 27, 2003, David L. Dennis, our former chief financial officer and chief corporate officer, filed a demand for arbitration alleging that he is entitled to payments under a severance benefit plan that our board of directors adopted in January 2003. Our position is that the severance benefit plan does not apply to Mr. Dennis, who resigned in November 2002. The parties are currently in the discovery phase of the arbitration process.

(b)         On September 28, 2004, the court granted our petition to coordinate two pending wage and hour lawsuits in Los Angeles Superior Court in California. We will now be defending in a single court this proposed class action lawsuit alleging that our hospitals violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders with respect to meal breaks, rest periods and the payment of compensation for overtime and meal breaks and rest periods not taken. Plaintiffs seek to certify this action on behalf of virtually all nonexempt employees of our California subsidiaries. We will argue that certification of a class in the action is not appropriate because our uniform policies comply with the applicable Labor Code and Wage Orders. In addition, it is our position that each of these claims must be addressed individually based on its particular facts and, therefore, should not be subject to class certification.

(c)          We are cooperating with an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Orleans, Louisiana of Peoples Health Network (“PHN”), an unconsolidated New Orleans health plan management services provider in which one of our subsidiaries holds a 50% membership interest, and Memorial Medical Center, a New Orleans hospital owned by one of our subsidiaries. Subpoenas issued to PHN in 2003 seek various PHN-related corporate records, as well as information on patients who were admitted to a rehabilitation unit and members for whom inpatient rehabilitation

15

services were ordered, recommended or requested, and subsequently denied. The subpoenas also seek documents related to payments to and contractual matters related to physicians and others, third-party reviews of denials of services and certain medical staff committees and other medical staff entities. A subpoena issued to PHN in September 2004 seeks various documents, including medical policies and practice guidelines, and an additional subpoena issued to PHN in April 2005 seeks documents related to PHN’s appeal and grievance policies and member disenrollment, as well as information on PHN members who were admitted to a long-term acute care service or facility. We continue to provide certain information as requested by the government.

(d)         We received a voluntary document request in April 2004 seeking records relating to the relationship between Centinela Hospital Medical Center (which we sold in November 2004) and a third-party home health care placement service. In April 2005, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California advised us that it does not intend to take any action against us in connection with this matter.

(e)          We were notified in mid-2004 that subpoenas had been issued to the buyer of two of our former hospitals, Twin Rivers Regional Medical Center in Missouri and John W. Harton Regional Medical Center in Tennessee. We retained certain liabilities in connection with the sale of these hospitals in November 2003. The Twin Rivers subpoena seeks documents for the period from 1999 through 2003 pertaining to a number of cardiac care patients. The Harton subpoena seeks a variety of documents, primarily financial, for the period from June 2000 through 2003. In addition, we are cooperating with voluntary requests from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in St. Louis, Missouri seeking, among other things, documents regarding physician relocation agreements at four St. Louis area hospitals—two of which we no longer own—as well as Twin Rivers. The voluntary requests also seek additional information regarding certain admissions and medical procedures at Twin Rivers.

(f)            We are cooperating with an investigation by the United States Senate Committee on Finance concerning Redding Medical Center, Medicare outlier payments, patient care and other matters. In addition, we are one of 20 large health care systems in the United States that has received requests for documents and information as part of an investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce into hospital billing practices and their impact on the uninsured. We received the most recent request on April 25, 2005. We continue to cooperate with this investigation.

(g)         The Internal Revenue Service has completed an examination of our federal income tax returns for the fiscal years ended May 31, 1995, 1996 and 1997, and has issued a Revenue Agent’s Report in which it proposes to assess an aggregate tax deficiency for the three-year audit period of $157 million plus interest of approximately $141 million through March 31, 2005, before any federal or state tax benefit. The Revenue Agent’s Report contains several disputed adjustments, including the disallowance of a deduction for a portion of the civil settlement we paid to the federal government in June 1994 related to our discontinued psychiatric hospital business and a disputed adjustment with respect to the timing of the recognition of income for tax purposes pertaining to Medicare and Medicaid net revenues. We have filed a protest with the Appeals Division of the Internal Revenue Service. We believe we have adequately provided for all tax matters in dispute related to the Revenue Agent’s Report for the fiscal years ended May 31, 1995, 1996 and 1997 as of March 31, 2005.

In addition, the Internal Revenue Service has commenced an examination of our tax returns for the fiscal years ended May 31, 1998 through the seven-month transition period ended December 31, 2002. We presently cannot determine the ultimate resolution of this examination.

(h)         On March 24, 2005, the Florida Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) notified our Florida Medical Center hospital in Ft. Lauderdale that DCF had reinstated the hospital’s authority to receive patients under the Baker Act, a Florida state law that governs the involuntary admission of psychiatric patients to a hospital. On February 14, 2005, DCF had suspended the hospital’s authority to receive Baker Act patients. On March 1, 2005, we received a voluntary request for documents from the Florida Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (“MFCU”) office in Ft. Lauderdale seeking medical records and billing information for certain Medicaid patients admitted to Florida Medical Center’s psychiatric unit from January 2004 through February 2005, as well as certain information concerning patients admitted to the hospital under the Baker Act. We are cooperating with the Florida MFCU in connection with its review.

16

(i)             We recently resolved our disputes with several managed care plans regarding charges at facilities owned by our subsidiaries and the impact of those charges on stop-loss and other payments. We and our subsidiaries continue to be engaged in disputes with managed care plans, although our charges and their influence on contract provisions are less frequently the focus of these disputes.

In addition to the matters described above, we are subject to claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. The largest category of these relate to medical malpractice.

We record reserves for claims and lawsuits when they are probable and reasonably estimable. For matters where the likelihood or extent of a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, we have not recognized in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements all potential liabilities that may result. If adversely determined, the outcome of some of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, liquidity, financial position or results of operations.

The table below presents reconciliations of the beginning and ending liability balances in connection with legal settlements and related costs recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004:

(1)          Charges are included in other operating expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The discontinued operations charges were recorded as adjustments to net operating revenues within income loss from operations of asset group.

For the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, we recorded total costs of $13 million and $19 million, respectively, in connection with significant legal proceedings and investigations, including $5 million in 2005 and $8 million in 2004 that was reflected in discontinued operations. The March 2004 cash payments included an award of $163 million for contract damages to a former executive of the Company.

NOTE 11  INCOME TAXES

Income taxes in the three months ended March 31, 2005 included the following: (1) a $22 million income tax benefit in continuing operations to reduce the valuation allowance for our deferred tax assets and (2) income tax expense of $7 million in discontinued operations to increase the valuation allowance. A $789 million valuation allowance for our deferred tax assets was initially recorded in the fourth quarter of 2004. We assess the realization of our deferred tax assets quarterly to determine whether an adjustment to the income tax valuation allowance is required. Based on all available evidence, both positive and negative, and the weight of that evidence to the extent such evidence can be objectively verified, we determine whether it is more likely than not that all or a portion of the deferred tax assets will be realized. Based on our assessment of the realization of our deferred tax assets and the balance of those deferred tax assets, which are adjusted each quarter for changes in temporary differences, an adjustment of the valuation allowance is recorded each quarter.  Given the magnitude of our valuation allowance, our future income/losses could result in a significant adjustment to this valuation allowance.

The Internal Revenue Service has completed an examination of our federal income tax returns for fiscal years ended May 31, 1995, 1996 and 1997 and it has issued a Revenue Agent’s Report in which it proposes to assess an aggregate tax deficiency for the three-year audit period of $157 million plus interest of approximately $141 million through March 31, 2005, before any federal or state tax benefit (see Note 10). The Internal Revenue Service has commenced an examination of our tax returns for the fiscal years ended May 31, 1998 through the seven-month transition period ended December 31, 2002. We

17

presently cannot determine the ultimate resolution of this examination. We believe we have adequately provided for tax matters related to the fiscal years ended May 31, 1998 through the seven-month transition period ended December 31, 2002.

NOTE 12  EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

The table below is a reconciliation of the numerators and denominators of our basic and diluted earnings per common share calculations for income from continuing operations for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004.  Income is expressed in millions and weighted average shares are expressed in thousands.

Stock options (in thousands) that were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share from continuing operations because their exercise price exceeded the average market price of our common stock were 46,207 and 41,070 for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

NOTE 13  RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

The following summarizes noteworthy recently issued accounting standards:

•              SFAS No. 123R (Revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment” (“SFAS 123R”), was issued in December 2004, and replaces SFAS 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation” and supersedes APB 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees.” In April 2005, the SEC adopted a final rule amending the compliance date.  The accounting provisions of SFAS 123R will be effective for the first interim reporting period of the first fiscal year beginning on or after June 15, 2005, which for us will be January 1, 2006.

We are still evaluating the fair value valuation techniques allowed under SFAS 123R to determine the model that we will use to estimate the fair value of stock options granted after the adoption of this standard. If we determine that utilizing a lattice model valuation technique is more appropriate when we adopt SFAS 123R, the fair value estimates of future stock option grants under a lattice model may differ from fair value estimates if the Black-Scholes model were used.

•              In March 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued FASB Interpretation No. 47, “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143.” This Interpretation clarifies that an entity is required to recognize a liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if the fair value of the liability can be reasonably estimated. Uncertainty about the timing and (or) method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligation should be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information exists. The types of asset retirement obligations that are covered by this Interpretation are those for which an entity has a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity, however the timing and (or) method of settling the obligation are conditional on a future event that may or may not be within the control of the entity. We believe that future removal or containment costs associated with asbestos that may exist in certain of our properties may be subject to the accounting and disclosure requirements of this Interpretation. This Interpretation is effective for us no later than December 31, 2005. We are in the process of evaluating the estimated impact of this Interpretation.

18

NOTE 14  RESTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

As previously disclosed, the SEC is investigating allegations made by a former Tenet employee that inappropriate contractual allowances for managed care contracts may have been established at three California hospitals through at least fiscal year 2001. At the request of the audit committee of our board of directors, the board’s independent outside counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (“Debevoise”), conducted an independent accounting investigation of these allegations utilizing the forensic accounting services of Huron Consulting Group (“Huron”). Based on the investigation findings, on January 17, 2006, the audit committee determined that it was necessary to restate our previously reported financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003.

In addition, during the 2005 year-end close, we determined that components of our deferred tax valuation allowance were incorrectly recorded in 2004.  As a result, on February 15, 2006, the audit committee also determined that it was necessary to restate our previously reported 2004 financial statements for this error.

On March 1, 2006, the audit committee determined that due to additional adjustments (see category 3 below) resulting from the final independent accounting investigation report, it was necessary to further restate our financial statements for 2004 and periods back to and including the fiscal year ended May 31, 1999.  Since the financial statements for these periods were already being restated, we also recorded audit differences that were previously considered immaterial.  On March 1, 2006, the audit committee also determined that the impact of the 2004 audit differences on our 2005 quarterly periods necessitated a restatement of our previously reported financial statements for the 2005 quarterly periods.

As a result of the restatement, originally reported net loss was increased by $1 million ($0.00 per share) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 and decreased by $3 million ($0.00 per share) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004. The cumulative impact of errors related to periods prior to 2005 of $153 million has been reflected as a prior period adjustment to retained earnings as of December 31, 2004. For further information on the effect of the restatement adjustments on the December 31, 2004 Consolidated Balance Sheet, refer to the audited Consolidated Financial Statements and notes in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.  All of the amounts included in this report reflect these restated financial results.

The restatement adjustments specifically impacting the periods in this Form 10-Q/A are summarized into the following categories: