Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

15.   Commitments and Contingencies

Product Liability and Related Claims

We are subject to product liability claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. We establish standard accruals for product liability claims in conjunction with outside counsel based on current information and historical settlement information for open claims, related legal fees and claims incurred but not reported. These standard product liability accruals are recognized in selling, general and administrative expense. We may also establish provisions for certain product liability claims outside of the standard accruals that are recorded separately on our statement of earnings, such as the provision for claims related to the Durom^® Acetabular Component (Durom Cup) discussed below. We maintain insurance, subject to self-insured retention requirements, for losses from these and other claims.

On July 22, 2008, we temporarily suspended marketing and distribution of the Durom Cup in the U.S. Subsequently, a number of product liability lawsuits and other claims have been asserted against us. We have settled some of these claims and the others are still pending. Additional claims may be asserted in the future.

We have recorded provisions totaling $229.0 million as “Certain claims” on our statement of earnings, including $50.0 million and $75.0 million in the three month periods ending June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, representing our estimate of the Durom Cup-related claims we expect to be made for revision surgeries. Initially, the “Certain claims” provision was limited to original surgeries performed before July 22, 2008, with a revision surgery occurring within two years of the original surgery. However, based upon subsequent claims received we revised our estimate to include all claims for original surgeries performed before July 22, 2008 on a worldwide basis, regardless of the amount of time between the revision surgery and the original surgery. We have received claims in excess of our previous estimates, which necessitated the additional $50.0 million provision in the three month period ended June 30, 2011.

From 2008 through March 31, 2010, we recorded $42.7 million as part of our standard product liability accruals for worldwide claims relating to revisions of Durom Cup cases where the revisions had occurred, or were estimated to occur, more than two years after the original surgery. Of this amount, $10.9 million was recorded in the three month period ended March 31, 2010. Beginning with the second quarter of 2010, any additional provisions for such claims are recorded as part of the “Certain claims” accrual, as described above.

We will continue to record any provisions for claims relating to Durom Cup cases where the original surgery was performed after July 22, 2008 as part of our standard product liability accruals. As of June 30, 2011, we have recorded cumulative provisions totaling $9.0 million for such post-suspension claims.

Our estimate as of June 30, 2011 of the remaining liability for all Durom Cup-related claims relating to original surgeries performed before July 22, 2008 is $159.8 million, of which $42.5 million is classified as short-term in “Other current liabilities” and $117.3 million is classified as long-term in “Other long-term liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet. We expect to pay the majority of the Durom Cup-related claims within the next three years.

We rely on significant estimates in determining the provisions for Durom Cup-related claims, including the number of claims that we will receive and the average amount we will pay per claim. The actual number of claims that we receive and the amount we pay per claim may differ from our estimates. We cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from Durom Cup-related claims in excess of the losses we have accrued.

On August 20, 2008, Margo and Daniel Polett filed an action against us and an unrelated third party, Public Communications, Inc. (PCI), in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania seeking an unspecified amount of damages for injuries and loss of consortium allegedly suffered by Mrs. Polett and her spouse, respectively. The complaint alleged that defendants were negligent in connection with Mrs. Polett’s participation in a promotional video featuring one of our knee products. The case was tried in November 2010 and the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded $27.6 million in compensatory damages and apportioned fault 30 percent to plaintiffs, 34 percent to us and 36 percent to PCI. Under applicable law, we may be liable for any portion of the damages apportioned to PCI that it does not pay. On December 2, 2010, we and PCI filed a Motion for Post-Trial Relief seeking a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial or a remittitur. On June 10, 2011, the trial court entered an order denying our Motion for Post-Trial Relief and affirming the jury verdict in full and entered judgment for $20.3 million against us and PCI. On June 29, 2011, we filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and posted a bond for the verdict amount plus interest. We do not believe the facts and evidence support the jury’s verdict. We have not recorded any charge relating to this matter in our condensed consolidated statement of earnings for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 or for any prior period, because we believe we have strong arguments for reversing the jury verdict on appeal. As a result, we do not believe that it is probable that we have incurred a liability consistent with the verdict and we cannot reasonably estimate any loss that might eventually be incurred. Although we believe we have strong grounds to reverse the jury’s verdict, the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain. We could in the future be required to record a charge to our consolidated statement of earnings that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any particular period.

Intellectual Property and Related Claims

We are subject to claims of patent infringement and other intellectual property-related claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of our business.

On February 15, 2005, Howmedica Osteonics Corp. filed an action against us and an unrelated party in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,174,934; 6,372,814; 6,664,308; and 6,818,020. On June 13, 2007, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment on the invalidity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,174,934; 6,372,814; and 6,664,308 by ruling that all of the asserted claims are invalid for indefiniteness. On August 19, 2008, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,818,020, reducing the number of claims at issue in the suit to five. On April 9, 2009, in response to our earlier petition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted re-examination proceedings against U.S. Patent No. 6,818,020. The USPTO rejected all previously issued claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,818,020 as being unpatentable in light of one or more prior art references. On September 30, 2009, the Court issued an order staying proceedings in the litigation pending the outcome of the re-examination process. Subsequent to that stay order, Howmedica filed a motion seeking to certify an appeal of the summary judgment ruling on the ’934, ’814 and ’308 patents. That motion was granted on January 13, 2010. On October 13, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling on the invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’934, ’814 and ’308 patents. On November 12, 2010, Howmedica filed a petition for a re-hearing en banc, which was denied on December 14, 2010. On March 14, 2011, Howmedica filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Federal Circuit decision, which was denied on May 16, 2011. The case otherwise remains stayed pending the USPTO’s re-examination of the ‘020 patent. We continue to believe that our defenses against infringement of the ‘020 patent are valid and meritorious, and we intend to continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

We are involved in certain ongoing contractual and other disputes pertaining to royalty arrangements with licensors of technology. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the licensors’ claims. Because these matters are in the preliminary stages of the dispute resolution process, we cannot estimate the possible loss, if any, we may incur or predict the likely outcome of these matters.

Government Investigations

In September 2007, we and other orthopaedic companies settled a U.S. government investigation pertaining to consulting contracts, professional services agreements and other agreements by which remuneration is provided to orthopaedic surgeons. As part of the settlement, we entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG-HHS). Under the CIA, which has a term expiring in 2012, we agreed, among other provisions, to continue the operation of our enhanced Corporate Compliance Program, designed to promote compliance with federal healthcare program requirements. We also agreed to retain an independent review organization to perform annual reviews to assist us in assessing our compliance with the obligations set forth in the CIA to ensure that arrangements we enter into do not violate the Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b). A material breach of the CIA may subject us to exclusion by OIG-HHS from participation in all federal healthcare programs, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In September 2007, the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) informed us that it was conducting an investigation regarding potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in the sale of medical devices in a number of foreign countries by companies in the medical device industry. In November 2007, we received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting that any information provided to the SEC also be provided to the DOJ on a voluntary basis. In the course of continuing dialogues with the agencies, we have voluntarily disclosed information to the SEC and DOJ relating to sales of our products by independent distributors in two South American countries. In the first quarter of 2011, we received a subpoena from the SEC seeking documents and other records pertaining to our business activities in substantially all countries in the Asia Pacific region where we operate. We are in the process of responding to the subpoena. We cannot currently predict the outcome of this investigation.

Putative Class Actions

On August 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al., naming us and two of our executive officers as defendants. The complaint related to a putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between January 29, 2008 and July 22, 2008. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly failing to disclose developments relating to our orthopaedic surgical products manufacturing operations in Dover, Ohio and the Durom Cup. The plaintiff sought unspecified damages and interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief. On December 24, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint that alleged the same claims and related to the same time period. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 23, 2009. On December 1, 2009, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, without prejudice. On January 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the consolidated complaint. On January 28, 2011, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the consolidated complaint and dismissed the case. On February 25, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and we and the individual defendants intend to defend it vigorously.

On November 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Dewald v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al., naming us and certain of our current and former directors and employees as defendants. The complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of our U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs (plans) between October 5, 2007 and the date of filing and whose accounts included investments in our common stock. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing to offer Zimmer stock as an investment option in the plans when the stock purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that defendants failed to provide plan participants with complete and accurate information sufficient to advise them of the risks of investing their retirement savings in Zimmer stock. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified monetary payment to the plans, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief. On January 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleges the same claims and clarifies that the class period is October 5, 2007 through September 2, 2008. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 23, 2009. The motion to dismiss is pending with the court. On June 12, 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring the Dewald case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund case referenced above. We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and we and the individual defendants intend to defend it vigorously.