<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
 
                          HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES, INC.
                PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
                        SAFE HARBOR COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
                         FOR FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
 
     In passing the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("the
Reform Act"), 15 U.S.C.A. Section 77z-2 and 78u-5 (Supp. 1996), Congress
encouraged public companies to make "forward-looking statements" by creating a
safe harbor to protect companies from securities law liability in connection
with forward-looking statements. Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. ("HRI" or the
"Company") intends to qualify both its written and oral forward-looking
statements for protection under the Reform Act and any other similar safe harbor
provisions.
 
     "Forward-looking statements" are defined by the Reform Act. Generally,
forward-looking statements include expressed expectations of future events and
the assumptions on which the expressed expectations are based. All
forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain as they are based on various
expectations and assumptions concerning future events and they are subject to
numerous known and unknown risks and uncertainties which could cause actual
events or results to differ materially from those projected. Due to those
uncertainties and risks, the investment community is urged not to place undue
reliance on written or oral forward-looking statements of HRI. The Company
undertakes no obligation to update or revise this Safe Harbor Compliance
Statement for Forward-Looking Statements (the "Safe Harbor Statement") to
reflect future developments. In addition, HRI undertakes no obligation to update
or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the
occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future operating results over
time.
 
     HRI provides the following risk factor disclosure in connection with its
continuing effort to qualify its written and oral forward-looking statements for
the safe harbor protection of the Reform Act and any other similar safe harbor
provisions. Important factors currently known to management that could cause
actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements
include the following:
 
REGULATORY AND POLITICAL RISKS
 
     General.  From time to time, legislation is introduced in Congress and in
various state legislatures that would materially affect the Company's business.
The most significant legislation, law and regulation may be grouped in three
categories:
 
     - legislation that would substantially limit the ability of healthcare
       insurers to recover from third-parties accident-related medical benefits
       incurred by injured insureds ("Health Insurance Primacy Law");
 
     - legislation that would substantially limit the Company's ability to
       receive and utilize individual claim information from healthcare insurers
       ("Confidentiality Laws"); and
 
     - other federal and state laws.
 
     The following identifies specific risks in those three categories:
 
  Health Insurance Primacy Laws:
 
     Auto Choice Reform Act of 1997.  On September 9, 1998, Senators McConnell,
Grams, Moynihan, Lieberman and Gorton introduced the Auto Choice Reform Act of
1997. Under this Act, in those states not opting out of its provisions,
individual drivers may choose to be covered by an auto insurance system in which
healthcare insurers, with some exceptions, could be made primarily responsible
for healthcare costs incurred by those injured in automobile accidents.
Consequently, even if the insured's injuries were caused by the negligence of
another driver, the healthcare insurer would have no rights of recovery against
the negligent party or that party's liability insurer. Revenue generated from
recoveries against automobile liability insurers represented approximately 60%
of the Company's 1997 revenues. Similar legislation was introduced, but not
<PAGE>   2
 
enacted in the previous session of Congress. On June 24, 1997, similar
legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives
Armey, Moran, Saxton, Cox and McIntosh. Should this or similar legislation be
enacted it would have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations and financial condition.
 
     The proposed legislation asserts that (i) the costs of operating a motor
vehicle are excessive due to legal and administrative costs associated with the
processing of claims under the fault-based liability system and (ii) the costly
fault-based liability insurance system often fails to provide compensation
commensurate with loss and takes too long to pay benefits.
 
     Even if the Auto Choice Reform Act is ultimately abandoned, these policy
reasons may result in future legislation designed to significantly alter the
fault-based liability system used in most states, eliminate recovery rights of
healthcare insurers and adversely affect the Company's business.
 
     Clinton Administration Healthcare Proposals.  In 1993, as part of its
healthcare reform proposals, the Clinton Administration proposed to require in
effect that an injured insured's healthcare insurance provider be primarily
liable for the insured's healthcare costs for injuries caused by a third-party
and work related injuries. These proposals were never enacted into law, but had
they been, the Company's services would have been rendered largely unnecessary
and the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition would
have been materially adversely affected. Although the Clinton Administration has
abandoned its healthcare reform proposal, there can be no guarantee that a
future administration or Congress will not propose or enact such a provision or
other regulation that would diminish or eliminate the value of the Company's
services.
 
     Certain No Fault Insurance Systems.  Certain states have adopted versions
of automobile "no fault" insurance systems in which the injured party's health
insurance carrier or provider is primarily responsible for healthcare related
expenses (and not the responsible party and his or her insurer or the injured
insured's automobile liability insurer). In 1996, California voters rejected a
no-fault automobile insurance measure, Proposition 200, which would have
required drivers with bodily injuries to be compensated by their own healthcare
insurers. Although Proposition 200 was rejected by the voters, there can be no
assurance that similar measures will not again be presented in a ballot
initiative or as legislation in the future. Growth in the number of states
adopting similar systems could significantly reduce the amounts otherwise
recoverable by the Company in connection with automobile injuries in such
states.
 
  Confidentiality Laws:
 
     Confidentiality Provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996. Section 262 of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. s.s. 1177) prohibits any person from
knowingly obtaining or disclosing individually identifiable health information
relating to an individual in violation of the standards relating to the
electronic transmission of healthcare information established by the Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services. In September 1997, the Secretary
submitted recommendations to Congress to implement these standards. If Congress
does not enact health information privacy legislation by August, 1999 the
Secretary will be required to issue final regulations on the subject. The
Secretary's recommendations set forth general principals, but do not propose
specific legislation. Several bills pertaining to privacy of individually
identifiable health information will be introduced in the next Congress. In
addition, the Secretary recently has issued proposed rules that outline security
standards for healthcare information that is maintained or transmitted
electronically, including standards for electronic signatures; electronic
transaction standards; a standard employer identification number and
requirements concerning its implementation; and a standard healthcare provider
identifier and requirements concerning its implementation. The comment periods
for these proposed rules have ended; however, none of the rules have been issued
in final form. The provisions of future legislation or regulations could impair
or prevent the acquisition and use by the Company of claims and insurance
information necessary to process recovery claims on behalf of its clients. In
addition to federal law, state laws and regulations governing privacy of
insurance records and related matters may significantly affect the Company's
business. State efforts to restrict the use of such records, which clients
currently provide to the Company, could impair the Company's business, results
of operations and financial condition.
 
                                        2
<PAGE>   3
 
  Other Federal and State Laws:
 
     Changes in the regulation of insurance and debt collection could also
affect the Company's business. Similarly, changes in law that would bar
healthcare subrogation or impair an injured party's ability to collect insured
damages (that is, an injured person would be prevented from recovering from the
wrongdoer damages for accident-related medical benefits covered by health
insurance) could similarly adversely affect the Company's business. Existing
debt collection laws also may be amended or interpreted in a manner that could
adversely affect the Company's business. Additionally, although the Company does
not believe that it engages in the unauthorized practice of law, changes in the
law or a judicial or administrative decision defining some of the Company's
activities as the practice of law, could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business.
 
CERTAIN LEGAL DOCTRINES
 
     With respect to recoverable claims, the rights of subrogation and
reimbursement may be limited in some cases by (i) the "made whole doctrine,"
which may limit the healthcare provider's ability to recover when the settlement
damage award received by the injured party is deemed inadequate to cover the
injured party's damages and (ii) the "common fund doctrine," which permits
plaintiff's attorneys to determine their compensation, based on the entire
amounts covered by a damage award and may, in some cases, proportionally
diminish the amount recoverable by HRI on behalf of the healthcare payor of that
damage award.
 
DEPENDENCE ON LARGE CLIENTS
 
     The Company's clients include national and regional healthcare payors,
large third-party administrators or self-insured corporations. The loss of one
or more of the Company's three largest clients could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition.
The Company believes that in the past year its stock price was adversely
affected by the reported termination of two large clients, as measured by lives.
The Company's revenues are earned under written contracts with its clients that
provide for contingency fees from recoveries under a variety of pricing regimes.
These contracts are generally terminable on 60 to 180 days' notice by either
party. However, the Company's contracts provide that in the event of
termination, the Company is generally entitled to complete the recovery process
on the backlog for that client.
 
LENGTHY REVENUE CYCLE AND FLUCTUATION IN OPERATING RESULTS
 
     The Company's operating results may fluctuate from time to time as a result
of a number of factors. These factors include:
 
     - the addition of new clients;
 
     - the cancellation of client contracts;
 
     - the postponement of client decisions to enter into contracts;
 
     - delays in transmission of clients' claims data;
 
     - changes in prices offered to new clients;
 
     - timing of acquisitions; and
 
     - introduction of new services or introduction of new technologies to the
       Company's business processes.
 
     HRI expends substantial time, effort and funds to install lives and
generate active files. As a result, HRI incurs expenses related to its revenue
before it is received which can result in fluctuations in operating results.
 
     In particular, during a fiscal quarter it is difficult to forecast when and
how much client claims data will be received. The Company's clients continuously
update and modify their claims and medical encounter processing systems often
causing delays in or errors to the transmission of claims data. The Company's
expense levels are based in part on expectations of future receipt of claims
data and the Company has been
 
                                        3
<PAGE>   4
 
significantly increasing and intends to continue to increase operating
expenditures and working capital balances as it expands its operations.
Specifically, material increases in new clients and lives installed, and
consequently client claims data received, will cause the Company to increase its
operating capacity before it expects to earn revenues from such new clients. If
operating results in any particular quarter do not meet the expectations of
securities analysts it could cause volatility in the price of the Company's
common stock.
 
LITIGATION
 
     The Company is engaged in the business of identifying and recovering
subrogation and related claims of its clients, many of which arise in the
context of personal injury lawsuits. As such, the Company operates in a
litigation-intensive environment. The Company has, from time to time, been, and
in the future expects to be, named as a party in litigation incidental to its
business operations. To date, the Company has not been involved in any
litigation which has had a material adverse effect upon the Company, but there
can be no assurance that pending litigation or future litigation will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and
financial condition.
 
     The Company is also party to a putative class action lawsuit (the
"Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit seeks monetary damages from the Company on the basis
that the Company recovered from responsible parties the "reasonable value" of
medical treatment provided by medical providers rather than the amounts actually
paid by certain healthcare payors who had a discounted fee-for-service ("DFS")
arrangement, capitation arrangement or other payment arrangement that did not
involve solely fee-for-service arrangements with the medical providers. Under a
typical capitation arrangement a medical provider is paid a flat periodic fee
for each patient referred by a healthcare payor and the medical provider
contractually bears the risk of the amount of services needed by the potential
patient group. Thus, specific services rendered by these medical providers do
not correspond directly to a specific payment by the healthcare provider. In
addition to monetary damages, the Lawsuit seeks injunctive relief preventing the
Company from pursuing recoveries in excess of the amounts actually paid by its
clients. The Company's current policy is not to seek recovery of the "reasonable
value" of medical treatment in DFS arrangements, but the Company does collect
the "reasonable value" of medical treatment under capitation and certain other
payment arrangements. The Company's clients determine such "reasonable value"
according to their internal procedures. If the Lawsuit or another lawsuit
seeking relief under similar theories were to be successful, it could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and
financial condition.
 
COMPETITION
 
     HRI competes primarily with the internal recovery departments of potential
customers and other subrogation recovery service vendors. To the Company's
knowledge, there are three smaller, but significant, independent providers of
subrogation recovery services in addition to HRI. All three independent
competitors preceded HRI's entry into the recovery industry, and no major
competitors have entered the market since that time. However, there are
participants in the healthcare insurance and transaction processing industries
that possess sufficient capital, and managerial and technical expertise to
develop competitive services. HRI believes that it has the following competitive
advantages in the bulk of its market:
 
     - process expertise;
 
     - capital requirements necessitated by the unusually long revenue cycle in
       the recovery industry;
 
     - a qualified and productive employee base possessing appropriate industry
       expertise; and
 
     - an information processing system designed to aid investigators and
       examiners engaged in the recovery process.
 
DEPENDENCE ON KEY PERSONNEL
 
     The Company's success depends to a significant degree upon the continued
contributions of members of the Company's senior management and other key sales,
marketing, computer systems and operations personnel, and the loss of any such
persons could have a materially adverse effect on the business of the
                                        4
<PAGE>   5
 
Company. The Company's success also depends upon its ability to attract and
retain highly qualified and skilled managerial, sales, marketing and computer
software development and operations personnel, the competition for whom is
intense. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in hiring
or retaining the requisite personnel, which could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. The
Company does not maintain key man insurance. The Company has employment
agreements with Patrick B. McGinnis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Debra
M. Murphy, Executive Vice President -- Operations, and Douglas R. Sharps,
Executive Vice President -- Finance and Administration.
 
PROSPECTIVE UPGRADE OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND LOSS OF PROPRIETARY
TECHNOLOGY
 
     The SubroSystem and its Upgrade.  HRI has developed a 3-step plan (the
"System Upgrade") under which it will, over a 24-month to 36-month period do the
following:
 
     - migrate the SubroSystem from an MS-DOS based environment to a Windows NT
       operating environment;
 
     - adopt a new database system; and
 
     - adopt an object-oriented programming language, such as C++.
 
     The System Upgrade includes a detailed process for the comprehensive
testing of all key elements prior to implementation of each step. The Company
expects that it will spend approximately $4.4 million on the System Upgrade, of
which $4.0 million spent on hardware and third-party software will be
capitalized. HRI's policy is to expense software development costs as incurred.
 
     There can be no assurance that the implementation of the System Upgrade (or
any part of it) will be successful, that it will be within budget, or that the
implementation of the System Upgrade (or any part of it) will not have an
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial
condition. Because the SubroSystem is proprietary, industry-specific software,
the absence of complete and detailed written documentation with respect to the
SubroSystem's functioning and code structure make the Company dependent on
existing staff, who are skilled in its operations and some of whom participated
in its design.
 
     Dependence on Proprietary Software Applications.  The Company's success
depends, in part, upon its proprietary technology, specifically the integrated
software programs comprising the SubroSystem. Certain elements of the
SubroSystem are protected by federal copyright law. However, such protection
neither confers a monopoly on the use of subrogation recovery software systems
nor prevents competitors from developing similar systems. The SubroSystem, like
all other software programs, may be subject to a variety of replication
techniques (for example, reverse engineering, logic tracing, disassembly and
decompilation) that would produce a functionally similar software system not
covered by the Company's registered copyright. Therefore, there can be no
assurance that the Company's registered copyright on the SubroSystem will
preclude or deter by current or future competitors, with the effect that the
Company might lose any advantage conferred by the SubroSystem.
 
YEAR 2000 COMPUTER ISSUES
 
     The year 2000 presents a problem for computer systems (software and
hardware) that were not designed to handle any dates beyond the year 1999. The
problem is pervasive and complex because virtually every computer operation will
be affected in some way by the rollover of the last two digits of the year to
"00." In consequence, any such software and hardware will need to be modified
some time prior to December 31, 1999 in order to remain functional. Computer
systems that do not properly handle this rollover could generate erroneous data
or fail to function.
 
     The Company has initiated a company-wide program to identify and address
the modifications to or replacements of computer code (including data received
from clients), hardware and office equipment, the testing, and the
implementation procedures necessary to achieve year 2000 readiness ("Y2K
Readiness" or descriptively, "Y2K Ready"). As a result of this program, 9
different areas or functions within the Company
 
                                        5
<PAGE>   6
 
have been surveyed in order first, to identify software and hardware that are
not presently Y2K Ready, and second, to establish a schedule for remediation or
replacement of the items of software and hardware that are not Y2K ready.
 
     The Company has completed its identification of the elements of its
software and hardware that are not Y2K Ready. Included among these elements are
certain fields contained in SubroSystem, the Company's online subrogation
system. The first date of failure for all of these items of software and
hardware, including SubroSystem, is January 1, 2000. The completion date for
replacement or remediation of all elements of Company software and hardware that
are not Y2K Ready, including SubroSystem, is June 30, 1999. To date, the costs
of the Company's efforts to achieve Y2K Readiness have not been material, and
the Company believes that the future costs to complete its program to become Y2K
Ready will not be material.
 
     Management believes that the greatest risk posed to the Company's Y2K
Readiness lies in the possible failure of its clients and other members of the
healthcare payor industry to achieve Y2K Readiness. The Company relies on its
clients to provide electronic claims data, through electronic data interfaces,
as the source of information from which the Company identifies potentially
recoverable claims. If clients are unable to provide such data because they are
not Y2K Ready, the Company could suffer a slow-down in its recovery efforts,
impairing its ability to make the recoveries from which it derives its revenue.
Moreover, to the extent that payors which are potential clients fail to achieve
Y2K Readiness, HRI's ability to sell to and to install such payors may also be
impaired. With respect to current clients, HRI has undertaken a survey of each
client's state of Y2K Readiness. The Company has not, to date, received its
clients' responses to this survey, and is therefore unable to form an opinion as
to the present level of this risk. The Company is unaware of any survey speaking
to the Y2K Readiness of the healthcare payor industry at-large, and is thus
unable to assess the magnitude of this risk with respect to potential clients.
 
     The Company's contingency planning calls for, among other things, early
identification of alternative means of obtaining electronic claims data should
the existing electronic data interfaces with clients fail. However, the Company
does not at present have a developed contingency plan for dealing with clients
that, because of a failure to achieve Y2K Readiness, are unable to process
healthcare claims electronically. This contingency planning will occur on an as
needed, client-specific basis, as part of the client assessment process
described above.
 
CONSOLIDATION AMONG HEALTHCARE PAYORS: PRESSURE ON MARGINS
 
     Consolidation among healthcare payors could increase their bargaining
strength as the number of lives insured or otherwise covered by such healthcare
payors grows. This consolidation may place downward pressure on the Company's
historic margins and may create additional competition from such healthcare
payors in the form of better equipped in-house recovery departments.
Additionally, existing clients have been and may in the future be lost through
acquisition by non-client healthcare payors.
 
LIMITATION ON DIVIDENDS
 
     From August 28, 1995, the date Medaphis Corporation ("Medaphis") acquired
HRI, until May 1997 when Medaphis sold HRI in an initial public offering (the
"Offering"), the Company paid dividends to Medaphis totaling $13.6 million.
Following the Offering, however, the Company has retained earnings to finance
the growth and development of its business and does not anticipate paying cash
dividends on its common stock in the foreseeable future. The Company's credit
facility limits its ability to pay dividends on its common stock.
 
ABILITY TO MANAGE GROWTH IN SUBROGATION BUSINESS
 
     The Company recently has experienced significant growth in both its
revenues and the number of its employees. This growth has resulted in an
increase in responsibilities placed upon the Company's management and has placed
added pressures an the Company's operating systems. The Company is expanding its
management, systems development and support, marketing, sales and customer
services and upgrading the SubroSystem, which may place a strain on the
Company's operations. Furthermore, the initial expenses
                                        6
<PAGE>   7
 
associated with the addition of new clients may be incurred before the Company
recognizes any revenues from such new clients. There can be no assurance that
the Company will successfully manage its expanding operations or implement its
growth strategy; and if the Company's management is unable to manage growth
effectively, the Company's business, operating results and financial condition
could be adversely affected.
 
ABILITY TO EXECUTE GROWTH STRATEGY
 
     In addition to growing its existing subrogation recovery business, HRI
intends to extend its business model and capabilities, through external and
internal development, to other service industries. Although HRI does not
presently engage in any line of business other than subrogation recovery, it
believes that future development opportunities are likely to be characterized
by:
 
     - outsourcing services that produce predictable and recurring revenue
       streams;
 
     - competitive advantages from processes, automation and the provision of
       knowledge-rich services;
 
     - development-stage niche markets;
 
     - value-based pricing; and
 
     - a focus on (non-exclusive) healthcare information services.
 
     There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in the
internal development or acquisition of new lines of business or that it will be
able to successfully manage new lines of business which it may develop or
acquire, and if the Company's management is unable either to execute this growth
strategy or to manage the resulting growth, the Company's business, operating
results and financial condition could be adversely affected.
 
CERTAIN ANTI-TAKEOVER PROVISIONS
 
     Certain provisions of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
and Bylaws of the Company may be deemed to have the effect of making it
difficult to acquire control of the Company through a transaction not approved
by the Company's Board of Directors. These provisions include the ability of the
Company's Board of Directors to issue shares of preferred stock in one or more
series without stockholder authorization. The Company's Board of Directors is
empowered, without stockholder approval, to issue preferred stock with dividend,
liquidation, conversion, voting or other rights which could adversely affect the
voting power or other rights of the holders of common stock. In the event of
such issuance, the preferred stock could also be utilized, under certain
circumstances, as a method of discouraging delaying or preventing a change in
control of the Company. Although the Company has no current intention to issue
any shares of its preferred stock, there can be no assurance that the Company
will not do so in the future. These provisions may also have the effect of
discouraging a third-party from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to
obtain control of the Company even though such a transaction might be
economically beneficial to the Company and its stockholders. The Company is
subject to the anti-takeover provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law which prohibits the Company from engaging in a "business
combination" with an "interested stockholder" for a period of three years after
the time of the transaction in which the person first becomes an "interested
stockholder," unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed
manner. The application of Section 203 could delay or prevent a change of
control of the Company. Certain other provisions of the Company's Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws may have the effect of delaying
or preventing changes of control or management of the Company, which could
adversely affect the market price of the common stock. Among these are
provisions:
 
     - requiring a classified board of directors;
 
     - limiting the person able to, and the procedures for, calling a special
       meeting of the stockholders; and
 
     - requiring certain supermajority stockholder votes to amend certain of the
       foregoing provisions.
 
                                        7
<PAGE>   8
 
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY OBLIGATIONS TO CLIENTS
 
     From time to time, the Company may be subject to claims from its clients
that it failed to provide services in accordance with its contract or that its
recovery activities have harmed the client. To date, no client has terminated
its contract with the Company based upon the failure to provide services, nor
has any client asserted that the Company has in any way damaged its business.
The Company has agreed to indemnify and hold certain of its clients harmless
from negligent acts or omissions of the Company in the performance of recovery
services. Although the Company maintains, and intends to continue maintaining,
insurance covering these types of risks, there can be no assurance that such
insurance will be an adequate amount or will be available at reasonable costs in
the future.
 
STOCK PRICE VOLATILITY
 
     The Company believes that a variety of factors could cause the price of the
common stock to fluctuate, perhaps substantially, including:
 
     - announcements of developments related to the Company's business;
 
     - changes in financial estimates by securities analysts; and
 
     - developments in the Company's relationships with its customers,
       distributors and suppliers.
 
     In addition, in recent years the stock prices of companies have experienced
extreme price fluctuations which have often been unrelated to the operating
performance of such companies. Similar fluctuations may adversely affect the
market price of the common stock in the future.
 
     The Safe Harbor Statement supersedes the Safe Harbor Statements filed as
Exhibit 99.1 to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the period
ending June 30, 1998.
 
                                        8