Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15. Commitments and Contingencies On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to loss contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. We establish liabilities for loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. Litigation Durom^® Cup-related 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 were filed against us in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, and they generally allege that the Durom Cup contains defects that result in complications and premature revision of the device. We have settled some of these claims and others are still pending. The majority of the pending U.S. lawsuits are currently in a federal Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) in the District of New Jersey (In Re: Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Products Liability Litigation). Multi-plaintiff state court cases are pending in St. Clair County, Illinois (Santas, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al.) and Los Angeles County, California (McAllister, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al.). The initial trial in Santas took place in November 2014, the initial trial in the MDL took place in May 2015 and the initial trial in McAllister took place in July 2015. As of September 30, 2016, all litigation activity in the MDL, Santas and McAllister is stayed until mid-2017 to allow participation in the U.S. Durom Cup Settlement Program, a private program created to resolve actions and claims of eligible U.S. plaintiffs and claimants. Other lawsuits are pending in various domestic and foreign jurisdictions, and additional claims may be asserted in the future. Since 2008, we have recognized expense of $479.4 million for Durom Cup-related claims. Our estimate of our total liability for these claims as of September 30, 2016 remains consistent with our estimate as of December 31, 2015, and, accordingly, we did not record any additional expense during the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2016. With respect to the same prior year periods, we recognized $7.7 million in expense for Durom Cup-related claims. We maintain insurance for product liability claims, subject to self-insurance retention requirements. As of September 30, 2016, we have exhausted our self-insured retention under our insurance program and have a claim for insurance proceeds for ultimate losses which exceed the self-insured retention amount, subject to a 20 percent co-payment requirement and a cap. We believe our contracts with the insurance carriers are enforceable for these claims and, therefore, it is probable that we will recover some amount from our insurance carriers. We have received a portion of the insurance proceeds we estimate we will recover. We have a $95.3 million receivable in “Other assets” remaining on our consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2016 for estimated insurance recoveries for Durom Cup-related claims. As is customary in this process, our insurance carriers have reserved all rights under their respective policies and could still ultimately deny coverage for some or all of our insurance claims. Our estimate as of September 30, 2016 of the remaining liability for all Durom Cup-related claims is $299.8 million, of which $75.0 million is classified as short-term in “Other current liabilities” and $224.8 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 few years. Our understanding of clinical outcomes with the Durom Cup and other large diameter hip cups continues to evolve. We rely on significant estimates in determining the provisions for Durom Cup-related claims, including our estimate of the number of claims that we will receive and the average amount we will pay per claim. The actual number of claims and the actual amount we pay per claim may differ from our estimates. Among other factors, since our understanding of the clinical outcomes is still evolving, 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. Margo and Daniel Polett v. Zimmer, Inc. et al.: 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. Oral argument before the appellate court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was held on March 13, 2012. On March 1, 2013, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the $27.6 million judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. On March 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for re-argument en banc, and on March 28, 2013, we filed our response in opposition. On May 9, 2013, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted plaintiffs’ motion for re-argument en banc. Oral argument (re-argument en banc) before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania was held on October 16, 2013. On December 20, 2013, the Court issued its opinion again vacating the trial court judgment and remanding the case for a new trial. On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for allowance of appeal in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which was granted on May 21, 2014. Oral argument before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania took place on October 8, 2014. On October 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and remanded the case to that court to consider the question of whether the trial court erred in refusing to remit the jury’s compensatory damages award. On June 6, 2016, an en banc panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the $27.6 million verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court for remittitur. Remittitur briefs have been filed with the trial court and remain pending. Although we are defending this lawsuit vigorously, its ultimate resolution is uncertain. In the future, we could be required to record a charge that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. NexGen^® Knee System claims: Following a wide-spread advertising campaign conducted by certain law firms beginning in 2010, a number of product liability lawsuits have been filed against us in various jurisdictions. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, alleging that certain products within the NexGen Knee System suffer from defects that cause them to loosen prematurely. The majority of the cases are currently pending in a federal MDL in the Northern District of Illinois (In Re: Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Products Liability Litigation). Other cases are pending in other state and federal courts, and additional lawsuits may be filed. As of September 30, 2016, discovery in these lawsuits was ongoing. The initial bellwether trial took place in October 2015. The second bellwether trial, which was set to commence in November 2016, was dismissed following the court’s grant of summary judgment in our favor in October 2016. We have not accrued an estimated loss relating to these lawsuits because we believe the plaintiffs’ allegations are not consistent with the record of clinical success for these products. As a result, we do not believe that it is probable that we have incurred a liability, and we cannot reasonably estimate any loss that might eventually be incurred. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain. Biomet metal-on-metal hip implant claims: Biomet is a defendant in a number of product liability lawsuits relating to metal-on-metal hip implants. The majority of these cases involve the M2a-Magnum^TM hip system. The majority of the cases are currently consolidated in one federal MDL proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Product Liability Litigation). Other cases are pending in various state and foreign courts. On February 3, 2014, Biomet announced the settlement of the MDL. Lawsuits filed in the MDL by April 15, 2014 may participate in the settlement. Biomet continues to evaluate the inventory of lawsuits in the MDL pursuant to the categories and procedures set forth in the settlement agreement. The final amount of payments under the settlement is uncertain. The settlement does not affect certain other claims relating to Biomet’s metal-on-metal hip products that are pending in various state and foreign courts, or other claims that may be filed in the future. Our estimate as of September 30, 2016 of the remaining liability for all Biomet metal-on-metal hip implant claims is $60.7 million. Biomet has exhausted the self-insured retention in its insurance program and has been reimbursed for claims related to its metal-on-metal products up to its policy limits in the program. Zimmer Biomet will be responsible for any amounts by which the ultimate losses exceed the amount of Biomet’s third-party insurance coverage. As of September 30, 2016, Biomet had received all of the insurance proceeds it expects to recover under the excess policies. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain. Heraeus trade secret misappropriation lawsuits: In December 2008, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH (together with its affiliates, “Heraeus”) initiated legal proceedings in Germany against Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV and certain other subsidiaries of Biomet, Inc., alleging that Biomet, Inc. and Biomet Europe BV misappropriated Heraeus trade secrets when developing Biomet Europe’s Refobacin and Biomet Bone Cement line of cements (“European Cements”). The lawsuit sought to preclude the defendants from producing, marketing and offering for sale their current line of European Cements and to compensate Heraeus for any damages incurred (alleged to be in excess of €30.0 million). On December 20, 2012, the trial court dismissed Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV, Biomet Deutschland GmbH and other defendants from the lawsuit. Biomet Orthopaedics Switzerland GmbH was the only Biomet entity remaining as a defendant. Following an appeal by Heraeus, on June 5, 2014, the German appeals court in Frankfurt (i) enjoined Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV and Biomet Deutschland GmbH from manufacturing, selling or offering the European Cements to the extent they contain certain raw materials in particular specifications; (ii) held the defendants jointly and severally liable to Heraeus for any damages from the sale of European Cements since 2005; and (iii) ruled that no further review may be sought (the “Frankfurt Decision”). The Heraeus and Biomet parties both sought appeal against the Frankfurt Decision. In a decision dated June 16, 2016, the German Supreme Court dismissed the parties’ appeals without reaching the merits, and no other ordinary appeal is available. The Frankfurt Decision is thus final. As of September 30, 2016, Heraeus had not made a demand for damages. As a result, Biomet Europe BV and Biomet Deutschland GmbH are enjoined from the manufacture, marketing, sale and offering of European Cements in Germany. Heraeus has taken the position that the judgment prohibits the manufacture, marketing, sale and offering of European Cements outside of Germany as well and is attempting to enforce or extend the judgment in a number of other European jurisdictions. Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV and Biomet Deutschland GmbH are vigorously contesting any enforcement of the judgment beyond Germany and thus filed a declaratory action in Germany on August 3, 2014 to have the court determine the reach of the Frankfurt Decision. In a decision dated April 28, 2016, the German appeals court confirmed Biomet’s position that the Frankfurt Decision applies only to acts within Germany. Heraeus has appealed this decision, and no prediction can be made as to the likelihood of review being granted by Germany’s Supreme Court. On September 8, 2014, Heraeus filed a complaint against a Biomet supplier, Esschem, Inc. (“Esschem”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit contains allegations that focus on two copolymer compounds that Esschem sells to Biomet, which Biomet incorporates into certain bone cement products that compete with Heraeus’ bone cement products. The complaint alleges that Biomet helped Esschem to develop these copolymers, using Heraeus trade secrets that Biomet allegedly misappropriated. The complaint asserts a claim under the Pennsylvania Trade Secrets Act, as well as other various common law tort claims, all based upon the same trade secret misappropriation theory. Heraeus is seeking to enjoin Esschem from supplying the copolymers to any third party and actual damages in an unspecified amount. The complaint also seeks punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. If Esschem is enjoined, Biomet may not be able to obtain the copolymers from another supplier and as a result may not be able to continue to manufacture the subject bone cement products. Although Heraeus has not named Biomet as a party to this lawsuit, Biomet has agreed, at Esschem’s request and subject to certain limitations, to indemnify Esschem for any liability, damages and legal costs related to this matter. On November 3, 2014, the court entered an order denying Heraeus’ motion for a temporary restraining order. On June 30, 2016, the court entered an order denying Heraeus’ request to give preclusive effect to the factual findings in the Frankfurt Decision. A trial is scheduled to commence on June 19, 2017. On October 15, 2015, Heraeus initiated expedited proceedings against Biomet France, Biomet SAS, Biomet Europe BV, Biomet, Inc., Biomet Orthopedics Switzerland GmbH and Biomet Global Supply Chain Center BV before the Commercial Court in Paris seeking to enjoin these entities from importing certain raw materials subject to the rulings in Germany and from manufacturing, selling or exporting the bone cements made from those raw materials, including under the names of the European Cements. On November 16, 2015, the presiding judge ruled that it had no jurisdiction over Biomet, Inc. and on December 4, 2015, the judge denied the preliminary measures requested by Heraeus. Heraeus has not appealed this ruling, but it filed an action on the merits with these same allegations before the Commercial Court of Romans-sur-Isere, France in September 2016. On December 8, 2015, Heraeus filed separate proceedings against Biomet France, Biomet SAS and Biomet France Holding before the Commercial Court of Romans-Sur-Isere seeking to gain access to certain documents which had been seized during searches of Biomet France’s premises in June 2015. Biomet is defending itself vigorously in these proceedings, which are ongoing. Heraeus continues to initiate other related legal proceedings in Europe seeking various forms of relief, including injunctive relief and damages, against Biomet-related entities relating to the European Cements. We have accrued an estimated loss relating to the Frankfurt Decision, but have not recognized any losses for lawsuits in other jurisdictions because we do not believe it is probable that we have incurred a liability, and we cannot reasonably estimate any loss that might eventually be incurred. Damages relating to the Frankfurt Decision are subject to separate proceedings and therefore it is reasonably possible our estimated loss may change in the future once Heraeus initiates these proceedings. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain. Stryker patent infringement lawsuit: On December 10, 2010, Stryker Corporation and related entities (“Stryker”) filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging that certain of our Pulsavac^® Plus Wound Debridement Products infringe three U.S. patents assigned to Stryker. The case was tried beginning on January 15, 2013, and on February 5, 2013, the jury found that we infringed certain claims of the subject patents. The jury awarded $70.0 million in monetary damages for lost profits. The jury also found that we willfully infringed the subject patents. We filed multiple post-trial motions, including a motion seeking a new trial. On August 7, 2013, the trial court issued a ruling denying all of our motions and awarded treble damages and attorneys’ fees to Stryker. We filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to seek reversal of both the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s rulings on our post-trial motions. Oral argument before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took place on September 8, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the $70.0 million lost profits award but reversed the willfulness finding, vacating the treble damages award and vacating and remanding the attorneys’ fees award. We accrued an estimated loss of $70.0 million related to this matter in the three month period ended December 31, 2014. On January 20, 2015, Stryker filed a motion with the Federal Circuit for a rehearing en banc. On March 23, 2015, the Federal Circuit denied Stryker’s petition. Stryker subsequently filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In July 2015, we paid the final award of $90.3 million, which includes the original $70.0 million plus pre- and post-judgment interest and damages for sales that occurred post-trial but prior to our entry into a license agreement with Stryker. On October 19, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Stryker’s petition for certiorari. Oral argument took place on February 23, 2016. On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision, vacating the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings related to the willfulness issue. On September 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the jury’s willfulness finding and vacating and remanding the District Court’s award of treble damages, its finding that this was an exceptional case and its award of attorneys’ fees. Although we are defending this lawsuit vigorously, the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain. In the future, we could be required to record a charge of up to $165.0 million that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. Regulatory Matters, Government Investigations and Other Matters FDA warning letters: In September 2012, Zimmer received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) citing concerns relating to certain processes pertaining to products manufactured at our Ponce, Puerto Rico manufacturing facility. In June 2015, Biomet received a warning letter from the FDA that requested additional information to allow the FDA to evaluate the adequacy of Biomet’s responses to certain Form 483 observations issued following an inspection of Biomet’s Zhejiang, China manufacturing facility in January 2015. In May 2016, Zimmer received a warning letter from the FDA related to observed non-conformities with current good manufacturing practice requirements of the Quality System regulation at our facility in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. We have provided detailed responses to the FDA as to our corrective actions and will continue to work expeditiously to address the issues identified by the FDA during inspections in Ponce, Zhejiang and Montreal. As of September 30, 2016, these warning letters remained pending. Until the violations are corrected, we may be subject to additional regulatory action by the FDA, including seizure, injunction and/or civil monetary penalties. Additionally, requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments related to products manufactured at the Ponce facility may not be granted and premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which the quality system regulation deviations at these facilities are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected. In addition to responding to the warning letters described above, we are in the process of addressing various FDA Form 483 inspectional observations at certain of our manufacturing facilities. The ultimate outcome of these matters is presently uncertain. Biomet DPA and Consent: On March 26, 2012, Biomet entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) with the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (“DOJ”) and a Consent to Final Judgment (“Consent”) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) related to an investigation by the DOJ and the SEC into possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) in the marketing and sale of medical devices in certain foreign countries. Pursuant to the DPA, the DOJ agreed to defer prosecution of Biomet in connection with those matters, provided that Biomet satisfies its obligations under the DPA over the term of the DPA. The DPA had a three-year term and provided that it could be extended in the sole discretion of the DOJ for an additional year. Pursuant to the Consent, Biomet consented to the entry of a Final Judgment which, among other things, permanently enjoined Biomet from violating the provisions of the FCPA. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the DPA, an independent external compliance monitor was appointed to review Biomet’s compliance with the DPA, particularly in relation to Biomet’s international sales practices. The Consent that Biomet entered into with the SEC mirrors the DPA’s provisions with respect to the compliance monitor. In October 2013, Biomet became aware of certain alleged improprieties regarding its operations in Brazil and Mexico, including alleged improprieties that predated the entry of the DPA. Biomet retained counsel and other experts to investigate both matters. Based on the results of the ongoing investigations, Biomet has terminated, suspended or otherwise disciplined certain of the employees and executives involved in these matters, and has taken certain other remedial measures. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the DPA, in April 2014 and thereafter, Biomet disclosed these matters to and discussed these matters with the independent compliance monitor and the DOJ and SEC. On July 2, 2014 and July 13, 2015, the SEC issued subpoenas to Biomet requiring that Biomet produce certain documents relating to such matters. These matters remain under investigation by the DOJ. On March 13, 2015, the DOJ informed Biomet that the DPA and the independent compliance monitor’s appointment had been extended for an additional year. On April 2, 2015, at the request of the staff of the SEC, Biomet consented to an amendment to the Final Judgment to extend the term of the compliance monitor’s appointment for one year from the date of entry of the Amended Final Judgment. The DPA as originally extended was set to expire on March 26, 2016. However, the DOJ and the SEC continue to evaluate the alleged misconduct in Brazil and Mexico, as well as any issues relating to Biomet’s compliance program. The DOJ, the SEC and Biomet have agreed to continue to evaluate and discuss these matters and, therefore, the matter is ongoing as of the date of the filing of this Form 10-Q. Pursuant to the DPA, the DOJ has sole discretion to determine whether conduct by Biomet constitutes a violation or breach of the DPA, and the DOJ has notified Biomet that it believes a breach occurred. The DOJ has informed Biomet that it retains its rights under the DPA to bring further action against Biomet relating to the conduct in Brazil and Mexico disclosed in 2014 or the violations set forth in the DPA. The DOJ could, among other things, revoke the DPA or prosecute Biomet and/or the involved employees and executives. Biomet continues to cooperate with the SEC and the DOJ, and expects that discussions with the SEC and the DOJ will continue. There is no assurance that Biomet will enter into a consensual resolution of this matter with the SEC or the DOJ, and the terms and conditions of any such potential resolution are uncertain. We believe it is probable that Biomet will incur additional liabilities related to these investigations, which we have accrued in “Other current liabilities” as of June 24, 2015, the closing date of the Biomet merger. It is reasonably possible our estimates may change in the near future once the DOJ and SEC complete their investigations and we conclude our discussions regarding possible resolution.

15. Commitments and Contingencies

On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to loss contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. We establish liabilities for loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made.

Litigation

Durom^® Cup-related 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 were filed against us in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, and they generally allege that the Durom Cup contains defects that result in complications and premature revision of the device. We have settled some of these claims and others are still pending. The majority of the pending U.S. lawsuits are currently in a federal Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) in the District of New Jersey (In Re: Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Products Liability Litigation). Multi-plaintiff state court cases are pending in St. Clair County, Illinois (Santas, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al.) and Los Angeles County, California (McAllister, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al.). The initial trial in Santas took place in November 2014, the initial trial in the MDL took place in May 2015 and the initial trial in McAllister took place in July 2015. As of September 30, 2016, all litigation activity in the MDL, Santas and McAllister is stayed until mid-2017 to allow participation in the U.S. Durom Cup Settlement Program, a private program created to resolve actions and claims of eligible U.S. plaintiffs and claimants. Other lawsuits are pending in various domestic and foreign jurisdictions, and additional claims may be asserted in the future.

Since 2008, we have recognized expense of $479.4 million for Durom Cup-related claims. Our estimate of our total liability for these claims as of September 30, 2016 remains consistent with our estimate as of December 31, 2015, and, accordingly, we did not record any additional expense during the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2016. With respect to the same prior year periods, we recognized $7.7 million in expense for Durom Cup-related claims.

We maintain insurance for product liability claims, subject to self-insurance retention requirements. As of September 30, 2016, we have exhausted our self-insured retention under our insurance program and have a claim for insurance proceeds for ultimate losses which exceed the self-insured retention amount, subject to a 20 percent co-payment requirement and a cap. We believe our contracts with the insurance carriers are enforceable for these claims and, therefore, it is probable that we will recover some amount from our insurance carriers. We have received a portion of the insurance proceeds we estimate we will recover. We have a $95.3 million receivable in “Other assets” remaining on our consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2016 for estimated insurance recoveries for Durom Cup-related claims. As is customary in this process, our insurance carriers have reserved all rights under their respective policies and could still ultimately deny coverage for some or all of our insurance claims.

Our estimate as of September 30, 2016 of the remaining liability for all Durom Cup-related claims is $299.8 million, of which $75.0 million is classified as short-term in “Other current liabilities” and $224.8 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 few years.

Our understanding of clinical outcomes with the Durom Cup and other large diameter hip cups continues to evolve. We rely on significant estimates in determining the provisions for Durom Cup-related claims, including our estimate of the number of claims that we will receive and the average amount we will pay per claim. The actual number of claims and the actual amount we pay per claim may differ from our estimates. Among other factors, since our understanding of the clinical outcomes is still evolving, 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.

Margo and Daniel Polett v. Zimmer, Inc. et al.: 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. Oral argument before the appellate court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was held on March 13, 2012. On March 1, 2013, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the $27.6 million judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. On March 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for re-argument en banc, and on March 28, 2013, we filed our response in opposition. On May 9, 2013, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted plaintiffs’ motion for re-argument en banc. Oral argument (re-argument en banc) before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania was held on October 16, 2013. On December 20, 2013, the Court issued its opinion again vacating the trial court judgment and remanding the case for a new trial. On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for allowance of appeal in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which was granted on May 21, 2014. Oral argument before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania took place on October 8, 2014. On October 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and remanded the case to that court to consider the question of whether the trial court erred in refusing to remit the jury’s compensatory damages award. On June 6, 2016, an en banc panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the $27.6 million verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court for remittitur. Remittitur briefs have been filed with the trial court and remain pending. Although we are defending this lawsuit vigorously, its ultimate resolution is uncertain. In the future, we could be required to record a charge that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows.

NexGen^® Knee System claims: Following a wide-spread advertising campaign conducted by certain law firms beginning in 2010, a number of product liability lawsuits have been filed against us in various jurisdictions. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, alleging that certain products within the NexGen Knee System suffer from defects that cause them to loosen prematurely. The majority of the cases are currently pending in a federal MDL in the Northern District of Illinois (In Re: Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Products Liability Litigation). Other cases are pending in other state and federal courts, and additional lawsuits may be filed. As of September 30, 2016, discovery in these lawsuits was ongoing. The initial bellwether trial took place in October 2015. The second bellwether trial, which was set to commence in November 2016, was dismissed following the court’s grant of summary judgment in our favor in October 2016. We have not accrued an estimated loss relating to these lawsuits because we believe the plaintiffs’ allegations are not consistent with the record of clinical success for these products. As a result, we do not believe that it is probable that we have incurred a liability, and we cannot reasonably estimate any loss that might eventually be incurred. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain.

Biomet metal-on-metal hip implant claims: Biomet is a defendant in a number of product liability lawsuits relating to metal-on-metal hip implants. The majority of these cases involve the M2a-Magnum^TM hip system. The majority of the cases are currently consolidated in one federal MDL proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Product Liability Litigation). Other cases are pending in various state and foreign courts.

On February 3, 2014, Biomet announced the settlement of the MDL. Lawsuits filed in the MDL by April 15, 2014 may participate in the settlement. Biomet continues to evaluate the inventory of lawsuits in the MDL pursuant to the categories and procedures set forth in the settlement agreement. The final amount of payments under the settlement is uncertain. The settlement does not affect certain other claims relating to Biomet’s metal-on-metal hip products that are pending in various state and foreign courts, or other claims that may be filed in the future. Our estimate as of September 30, 2016 of the remaining liability for all Biomet metal-on-metal hip implant claims is $60.7 million.

Biomet has exhausted the self-insured retention in its insurance program and has been reimbursed for claims related to its metal-on-metal products up to its policy limits in the program. Zimmer Biomet will be responsible for any amounts by which the ultimate losses exceed the amount of Biomet’s third-party insurance coverage. As of September 30, 2016, Biomet had received all of the insurance proceeds it expects to recover under the excess policies. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain.

Heraeus trade secret misappropriation lawsuits: In December 2008, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH (together with its affiliates, “Heraeus”) initiated legal proceedings in Germany against Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV and certain other subsidiaries of Biomet, Inc., alleging that Biomet, Inc. and Biomet Europe BV misappropriated Heraeus trade secrets when developing Biomet Europe’s Refobacin and Biomet Bone Cement line of cements (“European Cements”). The lawsuit sought to preclude the defendants from producing, marketing and offering for sale their current line of European Cements and to compensate Heraeus for any damages incurred (alleged to be in excess of €30.0 million). On December 20, 2012, the trial court dismissed Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV, Biomet Deutschland GmbH and other defendants from the lawsuit. Biomet Orthopaedics Switzerland GmbH was the only Biomet entity remaining as a defendant.

Following an appeal by Heraeus, on June 5, 2014, the German appeals court in Frankfurt (i) enjoined Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV and Biomet Deutschland GmbH from manufacturing, selling or offering the European Cements to the extent they contain certain raw materials in particular specifications; (ii) held the defendants jointly and severally liable to Heraeus for any damages from the sale of European Cements since 2005; and (iii) ruled that no further review may be sought (the “Frankfurt Decision”). The Heraeus and Biomet parties both sought appeal against the Frankfurt Decision. In a decision dated June 16, 2016, the German Supreme Court dismissed the parties’ appeals without reaching the merits, and no other ordinary appeal is available. The Frankfurt Decision is thus final. As of September 30, 2016, Heraeus had not made a demand for damages.

As a result, Biomet Europe BV and Biomet Deutschland GmbH are enjoined from the manufacture, marketing, sale and offering of European Cements in Germany. Heraeus has taken the position that the judgment prohibits the manufacture, marketing, sale and offering of European Cements outside of Germany as well and is attempting to enforce or extend the judgment in a number of other European jurisdictions. Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV and Biomet Deutschland GmbH are vigorously contesting any enforcement of the judgment beyond Germany and thus filed a declaratory action in Germany on August 3, 2014 to have the court determine the reach of the Frankfurt Decision. In a decision dated April 28, 2016, the German appeals court confirmed Biomet’s position that the Frankfurt Decision applies only to acts within Germany. Heraeus has appealed this decision, and no prediction can be made as to the likelihood of review being granted by Germany’s Supreme Court.

On September 8, 2014, Heraeus filed a complaint against a Biomet supplier, Esschem, Inc. (“Esschem”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit contains allegations that focus on two copolymer compounds that Esschem sells to Biomet, which Biomet incorporates into certain bone cement products that compete with Heraeus’ bone cement products. The complaint alleges that Biomet helped Esschem to develop these copolymers, using Heraeus trade secrets that Biomet allegedly misappropriated. The complaint asserts a claim under the Pennsylvania Trade Secrets Act, as well as other various common law tort claims, all based upon the same trade secret misappropriation theory. Heraeus is seeking to enjoin Esschem from supplying the copolymers to any third party and actual damages in an unspecified amount. The complaint also seeks punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. If Esschem is enjoined, Biomet may not be able to obtain the copolymers from another supplier and as a result may not be able to continue to manufacture the subject bone cement products. Although Heraeus has not named Biomet as a party to this lawsuit, Biomet has agreed, at Esschem’s request and subject to certain limitations, to indemnify Esschem for any liability, damages and legal costs related to this matter. On November 3, 2014, the court entered an order denying Heraeus’ motion for a temporary restraining order. On June 30, 2016, the court entered an order denying Heraeus’ request to give preclusive effect to the factual findings in the Frankfurt Decision. A trial is scheduled to commence on June 19, 2017.

On October 15, 2015, Heraeus initiated expedited proceedings against Biomet France, Biomet SAS, Biomet Europe BV, Biomet, Inc., Biomet Orthopedics Switzerland GmbH and Biomet Global Supply Chain Center BV before the Commercial Court in Paris seeking to enjoin these entities from importing certain raw materials subject to the rulings in Germany and from manufacturing, selling or exporting the bone cements made from those raw materials, including under the names of the European Cements. On November 16, 2015, the presiding judge ruled that it had no jurisdiction over Biomet, Inc. and on December 4, 2015, the judge denied the preliminary measures requested by Heraeus. Heraeus has not appealed this ruling, but it filed an action on the merits with these same allegations before the Commercial Court of Romans-sur-Isere, France in September 2016. On December 8, 2015, Heraeus filed separate proceedings against Biomet France, Biomet SAS and Biomet France Holding before the Commercial Court of Romans-Sur-Isere seeking to gain access to certain documents which had been seized during searches of Biomet France’s premises in June 2015. Biomet is defending itself vigorously in these proceedings, which are ongoing.

Heraeus continues to initiate other related legal proceedings in Europe seeking various forms of relief, including injunctive relief and damages, against Biomet-related entities relating to the European Cements.

We have accrued an estimated loss relating to the Frankfurt Decision, but have not recognized any losses for lawsuits in other jurisdictions because we do not believe it is probable that we have incurred a liability, and we cannot reasonably estimate any loss that might eventually be incurred. Damages relating to the Frankfurt Decision are subject to separate proceedings and therefore it is reasonably possible our estimated loss may change in the future once Heraeus initiates these proceedings. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain.

Stryker patent infringement lawsuit: On December 10, 2010, Stryker Corporation and related entities (“Stryker”) filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging that certain of our Pulsavac^® Plus Wound Debridement Products infringe three U.S. patents assigned to Stryker. The case was tried beginning on January 15, 2013, and on February 5, 2013, the jury found that we infringed certain claims of the subject patents. The jury awarded $70.0 million in monetary damages for lost profits. The jury also found that we willfully infringed the subject patents. We filed multiple post-trial motions, including a motion seeking a new trial. On August 7, 2013, the trial court issued a ruling denying all of our motions and awarded treble damages and attorneys’ fees to Stryker. We filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to seek reversal of both the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s rulings on our post-trial motions. Oral argument before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took place on September 8, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the $70.0 million lost profits award but reversed the willfulness finding, vacating the treble damages award and vacating and remanding the attorneys’ fees award. We accrued an estimated loss of $70.0 million related to this matter in the three month period ended December 31, 2014. On January 20, 2015, Stryker filed a motion with the Federal Circuit for a rehearing en banc. On March 23, 2015, the Federal Circuit denied Stryker’s petition. Stryker subsequently filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In July 2015, we paid the final award of $90.3 million, which includes the original $70.0 million plus pre- and post-judgment interest and damages for sales that occurred post-trial but prior to our entry into a license agreement with Stryker. On October 19, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Stryker’s petition for certiorari. Oral argument took place on February 23, 2016. On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision, vacating the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings related to the willfulness issue. On September 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the jury’s willfulness finding and vacating and remanding the District Court’s award of treble damages, its finding that this was an exceptional case and its award of attorneys’ fees. Although we are defending this lawsuit vigorously, the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain. In the future, we could be required to record a charge of up to $165.0 million that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows.

Regulatory Matters, Government Investigations and Other Matters

FDA warning letters: In September 2012, Zimmer received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) citing concerns relating to certain processes pertaining to products manufactured at our Ponce, Puerto Rico manufacturing facility. In June 2015, Biomet received a warning letter from the FDA that requested additional information to allow the FDA to evaluate the adequacy of Biomet’s responses to certain Form 483 observations issued following an inspection of Biomet’s Zhejiang, China manufacturing facility in January 2015. In May 2016, Zimmer received a warning letter from the FDA related to observed non-conformities with current good manufacturing practice requirements of the Quality System regulation at our facility in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. We have provided detailed responses to the FDA as to our corrective actions and will continue to work expeditiously to address the issues identified by the FDA during inspections in Ponce, Zhejiang and Montreal. As of September 30, 2016, these warning letters remained pending. Until the violations are corrected, we may be subject to additional regulatory action by the FDA, including seizure, injunction and/or civil monetary penalties. Additionally, requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments related to products manufactured at the Ponce facility may not be granted and premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which the quality system regulation deviations at these facilities are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected. In addition to responding to the warning letters described above, we are in the process of addressing various FDA Form 483 inspectional observations at certain of our manufacturing facilities. The ultimate outcome of these matters is presently uncertain.

Biomet DPA and Consent: On March 26, 2012, Biomet entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) with the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (“DOJ”) and a Consent to Final Judgment (“Consent”) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) related to an investigation by the DOJ and the SEC into possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) in the marketing and sale of medical devices in certain foreign countries. Pursuant to the DPA, the DOJ agreed to defer prosecution of Biomet in connection with those matters, provided that Biomet satisfies its obligations under the DPA over the term of the DPA. The DPA had a three-year term and provided that it could be extended in the sole discretion of the DOJ for an additional year. Pursuant to the Consent, Biomet consented to the entry of a Final Judgment which, among other things, permanently enjoined Biomet from violating the provisions of the FCPA. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the DPA, an independent external compliance monitor was appointed to review Biomet’s compliance with the DPA, particularly in relation to Biomet’s international sales practices. The Consent that Biomet entered into with the SEC mirrors the DPA’s provisions with respect to the compliance monitor.

In October 2013, Biomet became aware of certain alleged improprieties regarding its operations in Brazil and Mexico, including alleged improprieties that predated the entry of the DPA. Biomet retained counsel and other experts to investigate both matters. Based on the results of the ongoing investigations, Biomet has terminated, suspended or otherwise disciplined certain of the employees and executives involved in these matters, and has taken certain other remedial measures. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the DPA, in April 2014 and thereafter, Biomet disclosed these matters to and discussed these matters with the independent compliance monitor and the DOJ and SEC. On July 2, 2014 and July 13, 2015, the SEC issued subpoenas to Biomet requiring that Biomet produce certain documents relating to such matters. These matters remain under investigation by the DOJ.

On March 13, 2015, the DOJ informed Biomet that the DPA and the independent compliance monitor’s appointment had been extended for an additional year. On April 2, 2015, at the request of the staff of the SEC, Biomet consented to an amendment to the Final Judgment to extend the term of the compliance monitor’s appointment for one year from the date of entry of the Amended Final Judgment.

The DPA as originally extended was set to expire on March 26, 2016. However, the DOJ and the SEC continue to evaluate the alleged misconduct in Brazil and Mexico, as well as any issues relating to Biomet’s compliance program. The DOJ, the SEC and Biomet have agreed to continue to evaluate and discuss these matters and, therefore, the matter is ongoing as of the date of the filing of this Form 10-Q. Pursuant to the DPA, the DOJ has sole discretion to determine whether conduct by Biomet constitutes a violation or breach of the DPA, and the DOJ has notified Biomet that it believes a breach occurred. The DOJ has informed Biomet that it retains its rights under the DPA to bring further action against Biomet relating to the conduct in Brazil and Mexico disclosed in 2014 or the violations set forth in the DPA. The DOJ could, among other things, revoke the DPA or prosecute Biomet and/or the involved employees and executives. Biomet continues to cooperate with the SEC and the DOJ, and expects that discussions with the SEC and the DOJ will continue. There is no assurance that Biomet will enter into a consensual resolution of this matter with the SEC or the DOJ, and the terms and conditions of any such potential resolution are uncertain. We believe it is probable that Biomet will incur additional liabilities related to these investigations, which we have accrued in “Other current liabilities” as of June 24, 2015, the closing date of the Biomet merger. It is reasonably possible our estimates may change in the near future once the DOJ and SEC complete their investigations and we conclude our discussions regarding possible resolution.