Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jan. 29, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company and its affiliates are involved in a number of legal actions involving product liability, intellectual property disputes, shareholder related matters, environmental proceedings, income tax disputes, and other matters. The outcomes of these legal actions are not within the Company’s complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, the claimants seek damages, as well as other relief (including injunctions barring the sale of products that are the subject of the lawsuit), that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and governmental proceedings involving the Company are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in early procedural stages, with incomplete scientific facts or legal discovery; involve unsubstantiated or indeterminate claims for damages; potentially involve penalties, fines or punitive damages; or could result in a change in business practice. As of January 29, 2016 and April 24, 2015, accrued certain litigation charges involving product liability, intellectual property disputes, shareholder related matters, environmental proceedings, and other matters were $1.062 billion and $879 million, respectively. The Company includes accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. In addition to the litigation contingencies referenced below, the Company also has certain guarantee obligations that may potentially result in future costs. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the matters discussed below, the Company believes it is possible that costs associated with them could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, or cash flows. Product Liability Matters Sprint Fidelis In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. INFUSE Litigation The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 6,000 claimants have asserted or intend to assert personal injury claims against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts involving the INFUSE bone graft product. As of March 1, 2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately 3,900 of these claims. The Company recorded an additional expense of $26 million in the second quarter of fiscal year 2016 related to probable and reasonably estimable damages in connection with this matter. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as discussed above. Other INFUSE Litigation On June 5, 2014, Humana, Inc. filed a lawsuit for unspecified monetary damages in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging that Medtronic, Inc. violated federal racketeering (RICO) law and various state laws, by conspiring with physicians to promote unapproved uses of INFUSE. On September 25, 2015, the Court granted Medtronic’s motion to dismiss the primary allegations, including the RICO claims, in Humana’s complaint. Plaintiffs have now asked the court for permission to file an amended complaint. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Pelvic Mesh Litigation The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries resulting from the implantation of those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S. Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. In July 2015, the Company and Bard agreed that Bard would pay the Company $121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these claims. The $121 million settlement was recorded as an opening balance sheet adjustment related to the Covidien acquisition in the first quarter of fiscal year 2016. That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the Company and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard’s obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants have asserted or may assert claims involving products manufactured by Covidien’s subsidiaries. As of March 1, 2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately 4,200 of these claims. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as discussed above. Patent Litigation Ethicon Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., et al. v. Covidien, Inc., et al. is a patent infringement action filed on December 14, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. The complaint alleges that Covidien’s Sonicision product infringes several of Ethicon’s design and utility patents. Ethicon is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. On January 22, 2014, the district court entered summary judgment in Covidien’s favor, ruling that Covidien does not infringe any of the seven Ethicon patents in dispute and declaring five of Ethicon’s patents invalid. Ethicon appealed the district court’s decision and on August 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating in part. Specifically, the decision upheld the finding that Sonicision does not infringe any of the four design patents asserted by Ethicon, upheld the claim construction on a patent related to ultrasonic dampening components but remanded to the trial court for further proceedings because of factual issues, and reversed the District Court’s finding that an Ethicon patent directed to ultrasonic shears and methods of sealing blood vessels was invalid. The case was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. The only issues for consideration on remand are infringement and validity with respect to two claims of Ethicon’s ultrasonic damping patent. On November 5, 2015, the case was stayed to allow the parties to pursue mediation on those remaining claims, in addition to six other utility patents that Ethicon more recently alleged to be infringed by the Company’s Sonicision product. On January 21, 2016, after the conclusion of that mediation, the Company filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, seeking a declaration that its Sonicision product does not infringe any of the six additional utility patents subject to the mediation. The stay of Ethicon’s original patent infringement case expired on February 4, 2016, and on February 11, 2016, the court consolidated the Company’s declaratory judgment action with Ethicon’s original patent infringement action for all future purposes. The Company has not accrued for damages in connection with the patent litigation matter. Shareholder Related Matters INFUSE On March 12, 2012, Charlotte Kokocinski (Kokocinski) filed a shareholder derivative action against both Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and members of its Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, setting forth certain allegations, including a claim that defendants violated various purported duties in connection with the INFUSE bone graft product and otherwise. On March 25, 2013, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice, and Kokocinski subsequently filed an amended complaint. On March 30, 2015, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing the case with prejudice. Kokocinski sought reconsideration of that decision, and, on September 30, 2015, the Court denied Kokocinski’s request for reconsideration. Kokocinski has appealed the Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The matters were consolidated in September, 2013, and in the consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Shareholder Related Matters Resulting from the Covidien Acquisition On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien transaction. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion. On March 20, 2015, the Court issued its order and opinion granting Medtronic’s motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with the shareholder related matters, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. Environmental Proceedings The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites. These projects relate to a variety of activities, including removal of solvents, metals and other hazardous substances from soil and groundwater. The ultimate cost of site cleanup and timing of future cash flows is difficult to predict given uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations, and alternative cleanup methods. The Company is a successor to a company which owned and operated a chemical manufacturing facility in Orrington, Maine from 1967 until 1982, and is responsible for the costs of completing an environmental site investigation as required by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). MDEP served a compliance order on Mallinckrodt LLC and U.S. Surgical Corporation in December 2008. The compliance order included a directive to remove a significant volume of soils at the site. On December 19, 2008, Covidien filed an appeal with the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (Maine Board) to challenge the terms of the compliance order. A hearing before the Maine Board began on January 25, 2010 and concluded on February 4, 2010. On August 19, 2010, the Maine Board modified the MDEP order and issued a final order requiring removal of two landfills, capping of the remaining three landfills, installation of a groundwater extraction system and long-term monitoring of the site and the three remaining landfills. On April 3, 2014, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Maine Board’s compliance order. The Company has proceeded with implementation of the investigation and remediation at the site in accordance with the MDEP order as modified by the Maine Board order. The Company has also been involved in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Maine People’s Alliance. Plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring Covidien to conduct extensive studies of mercury contamination of the Penobscot River and Bay and options for remediating such contamination, and to perform appropriate remedial activities, if necessary. On July 29, 2002, following a March 2002 trial, the District Court entered an opinion and order which held that conditions in the Penobscot River and Bay may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment and that Covidien was liable for the cost of performing a study of the river and bay. The District Court subsequently appointed an independent study panel to oversee the study and ordered Covidien to pay costs associated with the study. A report issued by the study panel contains recommendations for a variety of potential remedial options which could be implemented individually or in a variety of combinations, and includes preliminary cost estimates for the potential remedial options, which the report describes as “very rough estimates of cost,” ranging from $25 million to $235 million. The report indicates that these costs are subject to uncertainties, and that before any remedial option is implemented, further engineering studies and engineering design work are necessary to determine the feasibility of the proposed remedial options. In June of 2014, a trial was held to determine if remediation was necessary and feasible, and on September 2, 2015, the District Court issued an order concluding that further engineering study and engineering design work is appropriate to determine the nature and extent of remediation in the Penobscot River and Bay. In January of 2016, the Court appointed an engineering firm to conduct the next phase of the study. The Company's accrued expenses for environmental proceedings are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as discussed above. Other Matters Medtronic has received subpoenas or document requests from the Attorneys General in Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Illinois, and Washington seeking information regarding sales, marketing, clinical, and other information relating to the INFUSE bone graft product. The Company continues to fully cooperate in connection with these matters. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with these matters, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. On May 2, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts issued a subpoena to ev3, a subsidiary of the Company, requesting production of documents relating to sales and marketing and other issues in connection with several neurovascular products. The matters under investigation relate to activities prior to Covidien's acquisition of ev3 in 2010. ev3 complied as required with the subpoena and cooperated with the investigation. The Company continues to fully cooperate in connection with this matter. In the third quarter of fiscal year 2016, the Company accrued expenses in connection with this matter, which are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as discussed above. On September 2, 2014, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, issued a subpoena requesting production of documents relating to sales and marketing practices associated with certain of ev3’s peripheral vascular products. The Company continues to fully cooperate in connection with this matter. The Company has not accrued expenses related to damages in connection with the issued subpoena. Income Taxes In March 2009, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some, but not all matters related to these fiscal years. On December 23, 2010, the IRS issued a statutory notice of deficiency with respect to the remaining issues. Medtronic, Inc. filed a Petition with the U.S. Tax Court on March 21, 2011 objecting to the deficiency. During October and November 2012, Medtronic, Inc. reached resolution with the IRS on various matters, including the deductibility of a settlement payment. Medtronic, Inc. and the IRS agreed to hold one issue, the calculation of amounts eligible for the one-time repatriation holiday, because such specific issue was being addressed by other taxpayers in litigation with the IRS. The remaining unresolved issue for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 relates to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico, which is one of the Company's key manufacturing sites. The U.S. Tax Court proceeding with respect to this issue began on February 3, 2015 and ended on March 12, 2015. The Company expects a ruling from the U.S. Tax Court sometime during fiscal year 2017. In October 2011, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some but not all matters related to these fiscal years. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2016, the Company finalized its agreement with the IRS on the proposed adjustments associated with the tax effects of the Company's acquisition of Kyphon Inc. (Kyphon). The settlement was consistent with the certain tax adjustment recorded during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015. The significant issues that remain unresolved for these tax years relate to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico. In April 2014, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some but not all matters related to these fiscal years. The significant issues that remain unresolved relate to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico, and proposed adjustments associated with the tax effects of its acquisition structures for Ardian, CoreValve, Inc., and Ablation Frontiers, Inc. The Company disagrees with the IRS and will attempt to resolve these matters at the IRS Appellate level; however, it will proceed through litigation, if necessary. The IRS continues to audit Medtronic, Inc.'s U.S. federal income tax returns for the fiscal years 2012 through 2014. Covidien and the IRS have concluded and reached agreement on its audit of Covidien’s U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2008 and 2009 tax years. The IRS continues to audit Covidien’s U.S. federal income tax returns for the years 2010 through 2012. Open periods for examination also include certain periods during which Covidien was a subsidiary of Tyco International plc (Tyco International). The resolution of these matters is subject to the conditions set forth in the Tyco tax sharing agreement (Tax Sharing Agreement). Tyco International has the right to administer, control and settle all U.S. income tax audits for periods prior to the 2007 separation. The IRS has concluded its field examination of certain of Tyco International’s U.S. federal income tax returns for the years 1997 through 2000 and proposed tax adjustments, several of which also affect Covidien’s income tax returns for certain years after 2000. Tyco International has appealed certain of the tax adjustments proposed by the IRS and has resolved all but one of the matters associated with the proposed tax adjustments. The IRS has asserted that substantially all of Tyco International’s intercompany debt originating during the years 1997 through 2000 should not be treated as debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and has disallowed interest deductions related to the intercompany debt and certain tax attribute adjustments recognized on Tyco International’s U.S. income tax returns. The Company disagrees with the IRS’s proposed adjustments, and, on July 22, 2013, Tyco International filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court contesting the IRS assessment. On January 15, 2016, Tyco International, as the audit managing party under the Tax Sharing Agreement, entered into Stipulations of Settled Issues with the IRS intended to resolve all disputes related to the intercompany debt issues for the tax sharing participants for the 1997 - 2000 audit cycle, currently before the U.S. Tax Court. The Stipulations of Settled Issues are contingent upon the IRS Appeals Division applying the same settlement to all intercompany debt issues on appeal for subsequent audit cycles (2001 - 2007) and the approval of the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation, if required. If finalized, the tentative resolution would cover all aspects of the controversy before the U.S. Tax Court and the Appeals Division of the IRS, and would result in a total cash payment by the tax sharing participants to the IRS in the range of $475 million to $525 million, which includes all interest and penalties. This payment would be shared among the tax sharing participants according to the formula in the Tax Sharing Agreement, and would be split among the Company, Tyco International, and TE Connectivity Ltd. (TE Connectivity) 42 percent, 27 percent, and 31 percent, respectively. See Note 11 to the condensed consolidated financial statements for additional discussion of income taxes. Guarantees As a result of the acquisition of Covidien, the Company has guarantee commitments and indemnifications with Tyco International, TE Connectivity, and Mallinckrodt plc (Mallinckrodt) which relate to certain contingent tax liabilities. On June 29, 2007, Covidien entered into the Tax Sharing Agreement, under which Covidien shares responsibility for certain of its, Tyco International’s and TE Connectivity’s income tax liabilities for periods prior to Covidien’s 2007 separation from Tyco International (2007 separation). Covidien, Tyco International and TE Connectivity share 42 percent, 27 percent, and 31 percent, respectively, of U.S. income tax liabilities that arise from adjustments made by tax authorities to Covidien's, Tyco International’s and TE Connectivity’s U.S. income tax returns, certain income tax liabilities arising from adjustments made by tax authorities to intercompany transactions or similar adjustments, and certain taxes attributable to internal transactions undertaken in anticipation of the 2007 separation. If Tyco International and TE Connectivity default on their obligations to Covidien under the Tax Sharing Agreement, the Company would be liable for the entire amount of these liabilities. All costs and expenses associated with the management of these tax liabilities are being shared equally among the parties. In connection with the 2007 separation, all tax liabilities associated with Covidien business became Covidien’s tax liabilities. Following Covidien’s spin-off of its Pharmaceuticals business to Covidien shareholders through a distribution of all the outstanding ordinary shares of Mallinkrodt (2013 separation), Mallinckrodt became the primary obligor to the taxing authorities for the tax liabilities attributable to its subsidiaries, a significant portion of which relate to periods prior to the 2007 separation. However, Covidien remains the sole party subject to the Tax Sharing Agreement. Accordingly, Mallinckrodt does not share in Covidien’s liability to Tyco International and TE Connectivity, nor in the receivable that Covidien has from Tyco International and TE Connectivity. If any party to the Tax Sharing Agreement were to default in its obligation to another party to pay its share of the distribution taxes that arise as a result of no party’s fault, each non-defaulting party would be required to pay, equally with any other non-defaulting party, the amounts in default. In addition, if another party to the Tax Sharing Agreement that is responsible for all or a portion of an income tax liability were to default in its payment of such liability to a taxing authority, the Company could be legally liable under applicable tax law for such liabilities and be required to make additional tax payments. Accordingly, under certain circumstances, the Company may be obligated to pay amounts in excess of the Company’s agreed upon share of Covidien's, Tyco International’s and TE Connectivity’s tax liabilities. The Company has used available information to develop its best estimates for certain assets and liabilities related to periods prior to the 2007 separation, including amounts subject to or impacted by the provisions of the Tax Sharing Agreement. The actual amounts that the Company may be required to ultimately accrue or pay under the Tax Sharing Agreement, however, could vary depending upon the outcome of the unresolved tax matters. Final determination of the balances will be made in subsequent periods, primarily related to certain pre-2007 separation tax liabilities and tax years open for examination. These balances will also be impacted by the filing of final or amended income tax returns in certain jurisdictions where those returns include a combination of Tyco International, Covidien and/or TE Connectivity legal entities for periods prior to the 2007 separation. In conjunction with the 2013 separation, Mallinckrodt assumed the tax liabilities that are attributable to its subsidiaries, and Covidien indemnified Mallinckrodt to the extent that such tax liabilities arising from periods prior to 2013 exceed $200 million, net of certain tax benefits realized. In addition, in connection with the 2013 separation, Covidien entered into certain other guarantee commitments and indemnifications with Mallinckrodt. See Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 24, 2015 for additional information. Except as described above in this note or for certain income tax related matters, the Company has not recorded an expense related to losses in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. In the normal course of business, the Company and/or its affiliates periodically enter into agreements that require one or more of them to indemnify customers or suppliers for specific risks, such as claims for injury or property damage arising out of the Company or its affiliates’ products or the negligence of any of their personnel or claims alleging that any of their products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property. The Company’s maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated, and the Company has not accrued any liabilities within the condensed consolidated financial statements. Historically, the Company has not experienced significant losses on these types of indemnifications.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company and its affiliates are involved in a number of legal actions involving product liability, intellectual property disputes, shareholder related matters, environmental proceedings, income tax disputes, and other matters. The outcomes of these legal actions are not within the Company’s complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, the claimants seek damages, as well as other relief (including injunctions barring the sale of products that are the subject of the lawsuit), that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and governmental proceedings involving the Company are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in early procedural stages, with incomplete scientific facts or legal discovery; involve unsubstantiated or indeterminate claims for damages; potentially involve penalties, fines or punitive damages; or could result in a change in business practice. As of January 29, 2016 and April 24, 2015, accrued certain litigation charges involving product liability, intellectual property disputes, shareholder related matters, environmental proceedings, and other matters were $1.062 billion and $879 million, respectively. The Company includes accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

In addition to the litigation contingencies referenced below, the Company also has certain guarantee obligations that may potentially result in future costs. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the matters discussed below, the Company believes it is possible that costs associated with them could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, or cash flows.

Product Liability Matters

Sprint Fidelis

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

INFUSE Litigation

The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 6,000 claimants have asserted or intend to assert personal injury claims against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts involving the INFUSE bone graft product. As of March 1, 2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately 3,900 of these claims. The Company recorded an additional expense of $26 million in the second quarter of fiscal year 2016 related to probable and reasonably estimable damages in connection with this matter. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as discussed above.

Other INFUSE Litigation

On June 5, 2014, Humana, Inc. filed a lawsuit for unspecified monetary damages in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging that Medtronic, Inc. violated federal racketeering (RICO) law and various state laws, by conspiring with physicians to promote unapproved uses of INFUSE. On September 25, 2015, the Court granted Medtronic’s motion to dismiss the primary allegations, including the RICO claims, in Humana’s complaint. Plaintiffs have now asked the court for permission to file an amended complaint. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Pelvic Mesh Litigation

The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries resulting from the implantation of those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S. Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. In July 2015, the Company and Bard agreed that Bard would pay the Company $121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these claims. The $121 million settlement was recorded as an opening balance sheet adjustment related to the Covidien acquisition in the first quarter of fiscal year 2016. That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the Company and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard’s obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants have asserted or may assert claims involving products manufactured by Covidien’s subsidiaries. As of March 1, 2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately 4,200 of these claims. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as discussed above.

Patent Litigation

Ethicon

Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., et al. v. Covidien, Inc., et al. is a patent infringement action filed on December 14, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. The complaint alleges that Covidien’s Sonicision product infringes several of Ethicon’s design and utility patents. Ethicon is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. On January 22, 2014, the district court entered summary judgment in Covidien’s favor, ruling that Covidien does not infringe any of the seven Ethicon patents in dispute and declaring five of Ethicon’s patents invalid. Ethicon appealed the district court’s decision and on August 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating in part. Specifically, the decision upheld the finding that Sonicision does not infringe any of the four design patents asserted by Ethicon, upheld the claim construction on a patent related to ultrasonic dampening components but remanded to the trial court for further proceedings because of factual issues, and reversed the District Court’s finding that an Ethicon patent directed to ultrasonic shears and methods of sealing blood vessels was invalid.

The case was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. The only issues for consideration on remand are infringement and validity with respect to two claims of Ethicon’s ultrasonic damping patent. On November 5, 2015, the case was stayed to allow the parties to pursue mediation on those remaining claims, in addition to six other utility patents that Ethicon more recently alleged to be infringed by the Company’s Sonicision product. On January 21, 2016, after the conclusion of that mediation, the Company filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, seeking a declaration that its Sonicision product does not infringe any of the six additional utility patents subject to the mediation. The stay of Ethicon’s original patent infringement case expired on February 4, 2016, and on February 11, 2016, the court consolidated the Company’s declaratory judgment action with Ethicon’s original patent infringement action for all future purposes. The Company has not accrued for damages in connection with the patent litigation matter.

Shareholder Related Matters

INFUSE

On March 12, 2012, Charlotte Kokocinski (Kokocinski) filed a shareholder derivative action against both Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and members of its Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, setting forth certain allegations, including a claim that defendants violated various purported duties in connection with the INFUSE bone graft product and otherwise. On March 25, 2013, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice, and Kokocinski subsequently filed an amended complaint. On March 30, 2015, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing the case with prejudice. Kokocinski sought reconsideration of that decision, and, on September 30, 2015, the Court denied Kokocinski’s request for reconsideration. Kokocinski has appealed the Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The matters were consolidated in September, 2013, and in the consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Shareholder Related Matters Resulting from the Covidien Acquisition

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien transaction. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion. On March 20, 2015, the Court issued its order and opinion granting Medtronic’s motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals.

The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with the shareholder related matters, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

Environmental Proceedings

The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites. These projects relate to a variety of activities, including removal of solvents, metals and other hazardous substances from soil and groundwater. The ultimate cost of site cleanup and timing of future cash flows is difficult to predict given uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations, and alternative cleanup methods.

The Company is a successor to a company which owned and operated a chemical manufacturing facility in Orrington, Maine from 1967 until 1982, and is responsible for the costs of completing an environmental site investigation as required by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). MDEP served a compliance order on Mallinckrodt LLC and U.S. Surgical Corporation in December 2008. The compliance order included a directive to remove a significant volume of soils at the site. On December 19, 2008, Covidien filed an appeal with the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (Maine Board) to challenge the terms of the compliance order. A hearing before the Maine Board began on January 25, 2010 and concluded on February 4, 2010. On August 19, 2010, the Maine Board modified the MDEP order and issued a final order requiring removal of two landfills, capping of the remaining three landfills, installation of a groundwater extraction system and long-term monitoring of the site and the three remaining landfills.

On April 3, 2014, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Maine Board’s compliance order. The Company has proceeded with implementation of the investigation and remediation at the site in accordance with the MDEP order as modified by the Maine Board order.

The Company has also been involved in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Maine People’s Alliance. Plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring Covidien to conduct extensive studies of mercury contamination of the Penobscot River and Bay and options for remediating such contamination, and to perform appropriate remedial activities, if necessary.

On July 29, 2002, following a March 2002 trial, the District Court entered an opinion and order which held that conditions in the Penobscot River and Bay may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment and that Covidien was liable for the cost of performing a study of the river and bay. The District Court subsequently appointed an independent study panel to oversee the study and ordered Covidien to pay costs associated with the study. A report issued by the study panel contains recommendations for a variety of potential remedial options which could be implemented individually or in a variety of combinations, and includes preliminary cost estimates for the potential remedial options, which the report describes as “very rough estimates of cost,” ranging from $25 million to $235 million. The report indicates that these costs are subject to uncertainties, and that before any remedial option is implemented, further engineering studies and engineering design work are necessary to determine the feasibility of the proposed remedial options. In June of 2014, a trial was held to determine if remediation was necessary and feasible, and on September 2, 2015, the District Court issued an order concluding that further engineering study and engineering design work is appropriate to determine the nature and extent of remediation in the Penobscot River and Bay. In January of 2016, the Court appointed an engineering firm to conduct the next phase of the study.

The Company's accrued expenses for environmental proceedings are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as discussed above.

Other Matters

Medtronic has received subpoenas or document requests from the Attorneys General in Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Illinois, and Washington seeking information regarding sales, marketing, clinical, and other information relating to the INFUSE bone graft product. The Company continues to fully cooperate in connection with these matters. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with these matters, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

On May 2, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts issued a subpoena to ev3, a subsidiary of the Company, requesting production of documents relating to sales and marketing and other issues in connection with several neurovascular products. The matters under investigation relate to activities prior to Covidien's acquisition of ev3 in 2010. ev3 complied as required with the subpoena and cooperated with the investigation. The Company continues to fully cooperate in connection with this matter. In the third quarter of fiscal year 2016, the Company accrued expenses in connection with this matter, which are included within accrued certain litigation charges in other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as discussed above.

On September 2, 2014, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, issued a subpoena requesting production of documents relating to sales and marketing practices associated with certain of ev3’s peripheral vascular products. The Company continues to fully cooperate in connection with this matter. The Company has not accrued expenses related to damages in connection with the issued subpoena.

Income Taxes

In March 2009, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some, but not all matters related to these fiscal years. On December 23, 2010, the IRS issued a statutory notice of deficiency with respect to the remaining issues. Medtronic, Inc. filed a Petition with the U.S. Tax Court on March 21, 2011 objecting to the deficiency. During October and November 2012, Medtronic, Inc. reached resolution with the IRS on various matters, including the deductibility of a settlement payment. Medtronic, Inc. and the IRS agreed to hold one issue, the calculation of amounts eligible for the one-time repatriation holiday, because such specific issue was being addressed by other taxpayers in litigation with the IRS. The remaining unresolved issue for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 relates to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico, which is one of the Company's key manufacturing sites. The U.S. Tax Court proceeding with respect to this issue began on February 3, 2015 and ended on March 12, 2015. The Company expects a ruling from the U.S. Tax Court sometime during fiscal year 2017.

In October 2011, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some but not all matters related to these fiscal years. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2016, the Company finalized its agreement with the IRS on the proposed adjustments associated with the tax effects of the Company's acquisition of Kyphon Inc. (Kyphon). The settlement was consistent with the certain tax adjustment recorded during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015. The significant issues that remain unresolved for these tax years relate to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico.

In April 2014, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some but not all matters related to these fiscal years. The significant issues that remain unresolved relate to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico, and proposed adjustments associated with the tax effects of its acquisition structures for Ardian, CoreValve, Inc., and Ablation Frontiers, Inc. The Company disagrees with the IRS and will attempt to resolve these matters at the IRS Appellate level; however, it will proceed through litigation, if necessary. The IRS continues to audit Medtronic, Inc.'s U.S. federal income tax returns for the fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

Covidien and the IRS have concluded and reached agreement on its audit of Covidien’s U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2008 and 2009 tax years. The IRS continues to audit Covidien’s U.S. federal income tax returns for the years 2010 through 2012. Open periods for examination also include certain periods during which Covidien was a subsidiary of Tyco International plc (Tyco International). The resolution of these matters is subject to the conditions set forth in the Tyco tax sharing agreement (Tax Sharing Agreement). Tyco International has the right to administer, control and settle all U.S. income tax audits for periods prior to the 2007 separation.

The IRS has concluded its field examination of certain of Tyco International’s U.S. federal income tax returns for the years 1997 through 2000 and proposed tax adjustments, several of which also affect Covidien’s income tax returns for certain years after 2000. Tyco International has appealed certain of the tax adjustments proposed by the IRS and has resolved all but one of the matters associated with the proposed tax adjustments. The IRS has asserted that substantially all of Tyco International’s intercompany debt originating during the years 1997 through 2000 should not be treated as debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and has disallowed interest deductions related to the intercompany debt and certain tax attribute adjustments recognized on Tyco International’s U.S. income tax returns. The Company disagrees with the IRS’s proposed adjustments, and, on July 22, 2013, Tyco International filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court contesting the IRS assessment. On January 15, 2016, Tyco International, as the audit managing party under the Tax Sharing Agreement, entered into Stipulations of Settled Issues with the IRS intended to resolve all disputes related to the intercompany debt issues for the tax sharing participants for the 1997 - 2000 audit cycle, currently before the U.S. Tax Court. The Stipulations of Settled Issues are contingent upon the IRS Appeals Division applying the same settlement to all intercompany debt issues on appeal for subsequent audit cycles (2001 - 2007) and the approval of the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation, if required. If finalized, the tentative resolution would cover all aspects of the controversy before the U.S. Tax Court and the Appeals Division of the IRS, and would result in a total cash payment by the tax sharing participants to the IRS in the range of $475 million to $525 million, which includes all interest and penalties. This payment would be shared among the tax sharing participants according to the formula in the Tax Sharing Agreement, and would be split among the Company, Tyco International, and TE Connectivity Ltd. (TE Connectivity) 42 percent, 27 percent, and 31 percent, respectively.

See Note 11 to the condensed consolidated financial statements for additional discussion of income taxes.

Guarantees

As a result of the acquisition of Covidien, the Company has guarantee commitments and indemnifications with Tyco International, TE Connectivity, and Mallinckrodt plc (Mallinckrodt) which relate to certain contingent tax liabilities.

On June 29, 2007, Covidien entered into the Tax Sharing Agreement, under which Covidien shares responsibility for certain of its, Tyco International’s and TE Connectivity’s income tax liabilities for periods prior to Covidien’s 2007 separation from Tyco International (2007 separation). Covidien, Tyco International and TE Connectivity share 42 percent, 27 percent, and 31 percent, respectively, of U.S. income tax liabilities that arise from adjustments made by tax authorities to Covidien's, Tyco International’s and TE Connectivity’s U.S. income tax returns, certain income tax liabilities arising from adjustments made by tax authorities to intercompany transactions or similar adjustments, and certain taxes attributable to internal transactions undertaken in anticipation of the 2007 separation. If Tyco International and TE Connectivity default on their obligations to Covidien under the Tax Sharing Agreement, the Company would be liable for the entire amount of these liabilities. All costs and expenses associated with the management of these tax liabilities are being shared equally among the parties.

In connection with the 2007 separation, all tax liabilities associated with Covidien business became Covidien’s tax liabilities. Following Covidien’s spin-off of its Pharmaceuticals business to Covidien shareholders through a distribution of all the outstanding ordinary shares of Mallinkrodt (2013 separation), Mallinckrodt became the primary obligor to the taxing authorities for the tax liabilities attributable to its subsidiaries, a significant portion of which relate to periods prior to the 2007 separation. However, Covidien remains the sole party subject to the Tax Sharing Agreement. Accordingly, Mallinckrodt does not share in Covidien’s liability to Tyco International and TE Connectivity, nor in the receivable that Covidien has from Tyco International and TE Connectivity.

If any party to the Tax Sharing Agreement were to default in its obligation to another party to pay its share of the distribution taxes that arise as a result of no party’s fault, each non-defaulting party would be required to pay, equally with any other non-defaulting party, the amounts in default. In addition, if another party to the Tax Sharing Agreement that is responsible for all or a portion of an income tax liability were to default in its payment of such liability to a taxing authority, the Company could be legally liable under applicable tax law for such liabilities and be required to make additional tax payments. Accordingly, under certain circumstances, the Company may be obligated to pay amounts in excess of the Company’s agreed upon share of Covidien's, Tyco International’s and TE Connectivity’s tax liabilities.

The Company has used available information to develop its best estimates for certain assets and liabilities related to periods prior to the 2007 separation, including amounts subject to or impacted by the provisions of the Tax Sharing Agreement. The actual amounts that the Company may be required to ultimately accrue or pay under the Tax Sharing Agreement, however, could vary depending upon the outcome of the unresolved tax matters. Final determination of the balances will be made in subsequent periods, primarily related to certain pre-2007 separation tax liabilities and tax years open for examination. These balances will also be impacted by the filing of final or amended income tax returns in certain jurisdictions where those returns include a combination of Tyco International, Covidien and/or TE Connectivity legal entities for periods prior to the 2007 separation.

In conjunction with the 2013 separation, Mallinckrodt assumed the tax liabilities that are attributable to its subsidiaries, and Covidien indemnified Mallinckrodt to the extent that such tax liabilities arising from periods prior to 2013 exceed $200 million, net of certain tax benefits realized. In addition, in connection with the 2013 separation, Covidien entered into certain other guarantee commitments and indemnifications with Mallinckrodt.

See Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 24, 2015 for additional information.

Except as described above in this note or for certain income tax related matters, the Company has not recorded an expense related to losses in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

In the normal course of business, the Company and/or its affiliates periodically enter into agreements that require one or more of them to indemnify customers or suppliers for specific risks, such as claims for injury or property damage arising out of the Company or its affiliates’ products or the negligence of any of their personnel or claims alleging that any of their products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property. The Company’s maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated, and the Company has not accrued any liabilities within the condensed consolidated financial statements. Historically, the Company has not experienced significant losses on these types of indemnifications.