Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Schedule of Loss Contingencies by Contingency [Text Block]	Contingencies We are, and will likely continue to be, involved in a number of legal proceedings, government investigations, and claims, which we believe generally arise in the course of our business, given our size, history, complexity, and the nature of our business, products, Customers, regulatory environment, and industries in which we participate. These legal proceedings, investigations and claims generally involve a variety of legal theories and allegations, including, without limitation, personal injury (e.g., slip and falls, burns, vehicle accidents), product liability or regulation (e.g., based on product operation or claimed malfunction, failure to warn, failure to meet specification, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements), product exposure (e.g., claimed exposure to chemicals, asbestos, contaminants, radiation), property damage (e.g., claimed damage due to leaking equipment, fire, vehicles, chemicals), commercial claims (e.g., breach of contract, economic loss, warranty, misrepresentation), financial (e.g., taxes, reporting), employment (e.g., wrongful termination, discrimination, benefits matters), and other claims for damage and relief. We believe we have adequately reserved for our current litigation and claims that are probable and estimable, and further believe that the ultimate outcome of these pending lawsuits and claims will not have a material adverse affect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations taken as a whole. Due to their inherent uncertainty, however, there can be no assurance of the ultimate outcome or effect of current or future litigation, investigations, claims or other proceedings (including without limitation the matters discussed below). For certain types of claims, we presently maintain insurance coverage for personal injury and property damage and other liability coverages in amounts and with deductibles that we believe are prudent, but there can be no assurance that these coverages will be applicable or adequate to cover adverse outcomes of claims or legal proceedings against us. As previously disclosed, we received a warning letter (the “warning letter”) from the FDA on May 16, 2008 regarding our SYSTEM 1® sterile processor and the STERIS 20 sterilant used with the processor (sometimes referred to collectively in the FDA letter and in this note 10 as the “device”). Among other matters, the warning letter included the FDA's assertion that significant changes or modifications had been made in the design, components, method of manufacture, or intended use of the device beyond the FDA's 1988 clearance, such that the FDA believed a new premarket notification submission (known within FDA regulations as a 510(k) submission) should have been made, and the assertion that our failure to make such a submission resulted in violations of applicable law. On July 30, 2008 (with an Addendum on October 9, 2008), we provided a detailed response contending that the assertions in the warning letter were not correct. On November 4, 2008, we received a letter from the FDA (dated November 3, 2008) in which the FDA stated without elaboration that, after reviewing our response, it disagreed with our position and that a new premarket notification submission was required. After discussions with the FDA regarding the November 3rd letter, we received an additional letter on November 6, 2008 from the FDA. The November 6th letter stated that the intent of the November 3rd letter was to inform us of the FDA's preliminary disagreement with our response to the warning letter and, before finalizing a position, the FDA reiterated that it wanted to meet with us to discuss the Company's response, issues related to the warning letter and next steps to resolve any differences between the Company and the FDA. We thereafter met with the FDA and, on January 20, 2009, we announced that we had submitted to the FDA a new liquid chemical sterilant processing system for 510(k) clearance, and we communicated to Customers that we would continue supporting the existing SYSTEM 1 installed base in the U.S. for at least a two year period from that date. On December 3, 2009, the FDA provided a notice (“notice”) to healthcare facility administrators and infection control practitioners describing FDA's “concerns about the SYSTEM 1 Processor, components and accessories, and FDA recommendations.” In the notice, among other things, FDA stated its belief that the SYSTEM 1 device had been significantly modified, that FDA had not cleared or approved the modified device, and that FDA had not determined whether the SYSTEM 1 was safe or effective for its labeled claims. The notice further stated that use of a device that does not properly sterilize or disinfect a medical or surgical device poses risks to patients and users, including the transmission of pathogens, exposure to hazardous chemicals and affect the quality and functionality of reprocessed instruments. The notice stated that FDA was aware of reports of malfunctions of the SYSTEM 1 that had the potential to cause or contribute to serious injuries to patients, such as infections, or injuries to healthcare staff, such as burns. Included in FDA's December 3, 2009 notice was a recommendation from FDA that if users had acceptable alternatives to meet sterilization and disinfection needs, they should transition to that alternative as soon as possible. After its December 3, 2009 notice, we engaged in extensive discussions with the FDA regarding a comprehensive resolution of this matter. On February 2, 2010, the FDA notified healthcare facility administrators and infection control practitioners that FDA's total recommended time period for transitioning from SYSTEM 1 in the U.S. was 18 months from that date. During this transition period in the U.S., we have continued to support the existing SYSTEM 1 installed base by providing accessories, sterilant, service and parts for U.S. Customers. On April 5, 2010, we received FDA clearance of the new liquid chemical sterilant processing system (SYSTEM 1E). Also in April 2010 we reached agreement with the FDA on the terms of a consent decree (“Consent Decree”). On April 19, 2010, a Complaint and Consent Decree were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and on April 20, 2010, the Court approved the Consent Decree. In general, the Consent Decree addresses regulatory matters regarding SYSTEM 1, restricts further sales of SYSTEM 1 processors in the U.S., defines certain documentation and other requirements for continued service and support of SYSTEM 1 in the U.S., prohibits the sale of liquid chemical sterilization or disinfection products in the U.S. that do not have FDA clearance, describes various process and compliance matters, and defines penalties in the event of violation of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree also provides that we may continue to support our Customers' use of SYSTEM 1 in the U.S., including the sale of consumables, parts and accessories and service for a transition period, not to extend beyond August 2, 2011 (later extended by FDA to February 2, 2012), subject to compliance with requirements for documentation of the Customer's need for continued support and other conditions and limitations (the “Transition Plan”). Our Transition Plan includes the “SYSTEM 1 Rebate Program” (the “Rebate Program”). In April 2010, we began to offer rebates to qualifying Customers. Generally, U.S. Customers that purchased SYSTEM 1 processors directly from us or who were users of SYSTEM 1 at the time of the Rebate Program was introduced and who return their units have the option of either a pro-rated cash rebate or a rebate toward the future purchase of new STERIS capital equipment (including SYSTEM 1E) or consumable products. In addition, we provide credits for SYSTEM 1 consumables in unbroken packaging and within shelf life and for the unused portion of SYSTEM 1 service contracts. As a result, we recorded a pre-tax liability of $110,004 related to the SYSTEM 1 Rebate Program during the first quarter of fiscal 2011. Of the $110,004, $102,313 is attributable to the Customer Rebate portion of the Program and was recorded as a reduction of revenues, and $7,691 is attributable to the disposal liability of the SYSTEM 1 units to be returned and was recorded as an increase in cost of revenues. This also resulted in a $110,004 reduction in operating income. Recording the obligations associated with the Rebate Program requires the use of estimates and assumptions. The use of estimates and assumptions involves judgments with respect to factors that may impact the ultimate outcome and may be beyond management's control. The amount recognized during the first quarter of fiscal 2011 is based upon the quantity of SYSTEM 1 processors eligible for rebates and the estimated value of rebates to be provided upon their return. Rebates of $102,313 are recognized as contra-revenue consistent with other returns and allowances offered to Customers. The estimated cost of $7,691 to facilitate the return and disposal of the processors has been recognized as cost of revenues. Both components are recorded as current liabilities. The key assumptions involved in the estimates associated with the Rebate Program include: the number and age of SYSTEM 1 processors eligible for rebates under the Rebate Program, the number of Customers that will elect to participate in the Rebate Program, the proportion of Customers that will choose each rebate option, and the estimated per unit costs of disposal. The number and age of SYSTEM 1 processors has been estimated based on our historical sales and service records and we have assumed that 100% of eligible Customers will elect to participate in the Rebate Program. In order to estimate the portion of Customers that will choose each available rebate option, we first assessed recent trends in sales of the proprietary consumable products utilized in the SYSTEM 1 processor. We noted a decline of approximately 19% in shipments of SYSTEM 1 consumables during the period between the notice by FDA to healthcare facility administrators and infection control practitioners and the announcement of the Rebate Program, which indicates that a portion of our Customers have already transitioned away from the SYSTEM 1 technology. The remaining 81%, provides the best available indication of the portion of Customers likely to elect the rebate for the SYSTEM 1E processor. Order and quote data for fiscal 2011 provides indications of the proportion of Customers that are expected to choose each of the other cash and rebate options. The per unit costs associated with disposal were estimated based on the service hours involved and quotes from our vendors which are based on current freight and disposal contracts. Our assumptions regarding the response of our Customers to the Rebate Program could be wrong and actual results could be different from these estimates. For example, if all Customers elected the maximum incentive rebate associated with the SYSTEM 1E processor rebate, the total estimated rebate liability of $102,313 would increase to approximately $111,000. Conversely, if all Customers elected the cash rebate option, the total estimated rebate liability would decrease to approximately $52,000. The Consent Decree has defined the resolution of a number of issues regarding SYSTEM 1, and we believe our actions with respect to SYSTEM 1, including the Transition Plan, were and are not recalls, corrections or removals under FDA regulations. However, there is no assurance that these or other claims will not be brought or that judicial, regulatory, administrative or other legal or enforcement actions, notices or remedies will not be pursued, or that action will not be taken in respect of the Consent Decree, the Transition Plan, SYSTEM 1, or otherwise with respect to regulatory or compliance matters, as described in this note 10 or in various portions of Item 1A. of Part I contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011, filed with the SEC on May 27, 2011. In December of 2010, we began shipping SYSTEM 1E units, after having received FDA clearance for the SYSTEM 1E chemical indicator, which is used in conjunction with the SYSTEM 1E. We also submitted a 510(k) to FDA for an optional biological indicator strip for use with SYSTEM 1E. As a result of discussions with FDA, we recently filed a de novo submission requesting classification of this monitoring strip in accordance with Section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act. The de novo process is part of the initial classification for new devices. Under the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act, FDA has up to 60 days after the de novo submission to respond to the submission. This spore-based monitoring strip is an optional accessory and is not required for the proper use of SYSTEM 1E. These actions do not affect the prior clearance of the SYSTEM 1E processor or the SYSTEM 1E chemical indicator. There is no assurance regarding the outcome or timing of the de novo submission. On February 5, 2010, a complaint was filed by a Customer that claimed to have purchased two SYSTEM 1 devices from STERIS, Physicians of Winter Haven LLC d/b/a Day Surgery Center v. STERIS Corp., Case No. 1:1-cv-00264-CAB (N.D. Ohio). The complaint alleged statutory violations, breaches of various warranties, negligence, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment and Plaintiff sought class certification, damages, and other legal and equitable relief including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and an order requiring STERIS to replace, recall or adequately repair the product and/or to take appropriate regulatory action. On February 7, 2011 we entered into a settlement agreement in which we agreed, among other things, to provide various categories of economic relief for members of the settlement class and not object to plaintiff's counsel's application to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses up to a specified amount. Certification of a settlement class was approved and final approval of the settlement was given by the court in the first quarter of fiscal 2012. During the third quarter of fiscal 2011, we recorded in operating expenses a pre-tax charge of approximately $19,796 related to the settlement of these proceedings. The assumptions regarding the amount of this charge included, among others, the portion of class members participating in the settlement and their choice of the categories of economic relief available for such members. These assumptions may be incorrect and the costs of the settlement may be higher or lower than the charge recorded. The actual settlement could be as low as $7,000 and as high as $22,000 depending on the options selected by the class members. Other civil, criminal, regulatory or other proceedings involving our products or services also could possibly result in judgments, settlements or administrative or judicial decrees requiring us, among other actions, to pay damages or fines or effect recalls, or be subject to other governmental, Customer or other third party claims or remedies, which could materially affect our business, performance, prospects, value, financial condition, and results of operations. For additional information regarding these matters, see the following portions of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011: “Business - Information with respect to our Business in General - Government Regulation”, and the “Risk Factor” titled: “We may be adversely affected by product liability claims or other legal actions or regulatory or compliance matters, including the Warning Letter and Consent Decree.”, the “Risk Factor” titled: “Our business may be adversely affected as a result of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration notices to healthcare administrators and device manufacturers, and related matters,” and the “Risk Factor” titled “Compliance with the Consent Decree may be more costly and burdensome than anticipated.” From time to time, STERIS is also involved in legal proceedings as a plaintiff involving contract, patent protection, and other claims asserted by us. Gains, if any, from these proceedings are recognized when they are realized. We are subject to taxation from United States federal, state, and local, and foreign jurisdictions. Tax positions are settled primarily through the completion of audits within each individual jurisdiction or the closing of statute of limitation. Changes in applicable tax law or other events may also require us to revise past estimates. We describe income taxes further in Note 8 to our consolidated financial statements titled, “Income Tax Expense”, and in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011 filed with the SEC on May 27, 2011.

Contingencies

We are, and will likely continue to be, involved in a number of legal proceedings, government investigations, and claims, which we believe generally arise in the course of our business, given our size, history, complexity, and the nature of our business, products, Customers, regulatory environment, and industries in which we participate. These legal proceedings, investigations and claims generally involve a variety of legal theories and allegations, including, without limitation, personal injury (e.g., slip and falls, burns, vehicle accidents), product liability or regulation (e.g., based on product operation or claimed malfunction, failure to warn, failure to meet specification, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements), product exposure (e.g., claimed exposure to chemicals, asbestos, contaminants, radiation), property damage (e.g., claimed damage due to leaking equipment, fire, vehicles, chemicals), commercial claims (e.g., breach of contract, economic loss, warranty, misrepresentation), financial (e.g., taxes, reporting), employment (e.g., wrongful termination, discrimination, benefits matters), and other claims for damage and relief.

We believe we have adequately reserved for our current litigation and claims that are probable and estimable, and further believe that the ultimate outcome of these pending lawsuits and claims will not have a material adverse affect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations taken as a whole. Due to their inherent uncertainty, however, there can be no assurance of the ultimate outcome or effect of current or future litigation, investigations, claims or other proceedings (including without limitation the matters discussed below). For certain types of claims, we presently maintain insurance coverage for personal injury and property damage and other liability coverages in amounts and with deductibles that we believe are prudent, but there can be no assurance that these coverages will be applicable or adequate to cover adverse outcomes of claims or legal proceedings against us.

As previously disclosed, we received a warning letter (the “warning letter”) from the FDA on May 16, 2008 regarding our SYSTEM 1® sterile processor and the STERIS 20 sterilant used with the processor (sometimes referred to collectively in the FDA letter and in this note 10 as the “device”). Among other matters, the warning letter included the FDA's assertion that significant changes or modifications had been made in the design, components, method of manufacture, or intended use of the device beyond the FDA's 1988 clearance, such that the FDA believed a new premarket notification submission (known within FDA regulations as a 510(k) submission) should have been made, and the assertion that our failure to make such a submission resulted in violations of applicable law. On July 30, 2008 (with an Addendum on October 9, 2008), we provided a detailed response contending that the assertions in the warning letter were not correct. On November 4, 2008, we received a letter from the FDA (dated November 3, 2008) in which the FDA stated without elaboration that, after reviewing our response, it disagreed with our position and that a new premarket notification submission was required. After discussions with the FDA regarding the November 3rd letter, we received an additional letter on November 6, 2008 from the FDA. The November 6th letter stated that the intent of the November 3rd letter was to inform us of the FDA's preliminary disagreement with our response to the warning letter and, before finalizing a position, the FDA reiterated that it wanted to meet with us to discuss the Company's response, issues related to the warning letter and next steps to resolve any differences between the Company and the FDA. We thereafter met with the FDA and, on January 20, 2009, we announced that we had submitted to the FDA a new liquid chemical sterilant processing system for 510(k) clearance, and we communicated to Customers that we would continue supporting the existing SYSTEM 1 installed base in the U.S. for at least a two year period from that date.

On December 3, 2009, the FDA provided a notice (“notice”) to healthcare facility administrators and infection control practitioners describing FDA's “concerns about the SYSTEM 1 Processor, components and accessories, and FDA recommendations.” In the notice, among other things, FDA stated its belief that the SYSTEM 1 device had been significantly modified, that FDA had not cleared or approved the modified device, and that FDA had not determined whether the SYSTEM 1 was safe or effective for its labeled claims. The notice further stated that use of a device that does not properly sterilize or disinfect a medical or surgical device poses risks to patients and users, including the transmission of pathogens, exposure to hazardous chemicals and affect the quality and functionality of reprocessed instruments. The notice stated that FDA was aware of reports of malfunctions of the SYSTEM 1 that had the potential to cause or contribute to serious injuries to patients, such as infections, or injuries to healthcare staff, such as burns. Included in FDA's December 3, 2009 notice was a recommendation from FDA that if users had acceptable alternatives to meet sterilization and disinfection needs, they should transition to that alternative as soon as possible. After its December 3, 2009 notice, we engaged in extensive discussions with the FDA regarding a comprehensive resolution of this matter. On February 2, 2010, the FDA notified healthcare facility administrators and infection control practitioners that FDA's total recommended time period for transitioning from SYSTEM 1 in the U.S. was 18 months from that date. During this transition period in the U.S., we have continued to support the existing SYSTEM 1 installed base by providing accessories, sterilant, service and parts for U.S. Customers.

On April 5, 2010, we received FDA clearance of the new liquid chemical sterilant processing system (SYSTEM 1E). Also in April 2010 we reached agreement with the FDA on the terms of a consent decree (“Consent Decree”). On April 19, 2010, a Complaint and Consent Decree were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and on April 20, 2010, the Court approved the Consent Decree. In general, the Consent Decree addresses regulatory matters regarding SYSTEM 1, restricts further sales of SYSTEM 1 processors in the U.S., defines certain documentation and other requirements for continued service and support of SYSTEM 1 in the U.S., prohibits the sale of liquid chemical sterilization or disinfection products in the U.S. that do not have FDA clearance, describes various process and compliance matters, and defines penalties in the event of violation of the Consent Decree.

The Consent Decree also provides that we may continue to support our Customers' use of SYSTEM 1 in the U.S., including the sale of consumables, parts and accessories and service for a transition period, not to extend beyond August 2, 2011 (later extended by FDA to February 2, 2012), subject to compliance with requirements for documentation of the Customer's need for continued support and other conditions and limitations (the “Transition Plan”). Our Transition Plan includes the “SYSTEM 1 Rebate Program” (the “Rebate Program”). In April 2010, we began to offer rebates to qualifying Customers. Generally, U.S. Customers that purchased SYSTEM 1 processors directly from us or who were users of SYSTEM 1 at the time of the Rebate Program was introduced and who return their units have the option of either a pro-rated cash rebate or a rebate toward the future purchase of new STERIS capital equipment (including SYSTEM 1E) or consumable products. In addition, we provide credits for SYSTEM 1 consumables in unbroken packaging and within shelf life and for the unused portion of SYSTEM 1 service contracts. As a result, we recorded a pre-tax liability of $110,004 related to the SYSTEM 1 Rebate Program during the first quarter of fiscal 2011. Of the $110,004, $102,313 is attributable to the Customer Rebate portion of the Program and was recorded as a reduction of revenues, and $7,691 is attributable to the disposal liability of the SYSTEM 1 units to be returned and was recorded as an increase in cost of revenues. This also resulted in a $110,004 reduction in operating income.

Recording the obligations associated with the Rebate Program requires the use of estimates and assumptions. The use of estimates and assumptions involves judgments with respect to factors that may impact the ultimate outcome and may be beyond management's control. The amount recognized during the first quarter of fiscal 2011 is based upon the quantity of SYSTEM 1 processors eligible for rebates and the estimated value of rebates to be provided upon their return. Rebates of $102,313 are recognized as contra-revenue consistent with other returns and allowances offered to Customers. The estimated cost of $7,691 to facilitate the return and disposal of the processors has been recognized as cost of revenues. Both components are recorded as current liabilities. The key assumptions involved in the estimates associated with the Rebate Program include: the number and age of SYSTEM 1 processors eligible for rebates under the Rebate Program, the number of Customers that will elect to participate in the Rebate Program, the proportion of Customers that will choose each rebate option, and the estimated per unit costs of disposal.

The number and age of SYSTEM 1 processors has been estimated based on our historical sales and service records and we have assumed that 100% of eligible Customers will elect to participate in the Rebate Program. In order to estimate the portion of Customers that will choose each available rebate option, we first assessed recent trends in sales of the proprietary consumable products utilized in the SYSTEM 1 processor. We noted a decline of approximately 19% in shipments of SYSTEM 1 consumables during the period between the notice by FDA to healthcare facility administrators and infection control practitioners and the announcement of the Rebate Program, which indicates that a portion of our Customers have already transitioned away from the SYSTEM 1 technology. The remaining 81%, provides the best available indication of the portion of Customers likely to elect the rebate for the SYSTEM 1E processor. Order and quote data for fiscal 2011 provides indications of the proportion of Customers that are expected to choose each of the other cash and rebate options. The per unit costs associated with disposal were estimated based on the service hours involved and quotes from our vendors which are based on current freight and disposal contracts.

Our assumptions regarding the response of our Customers to the Rebate Program could be wrong and actual results could be different from these estimates. For example, if all Customers elected the maximum incentive rebate associated with the SYSTEM 1E processor rebate, the total estimated rebate liability of $102,313 would increase to approximately $111,000. Conversely, if all Customers elected the cash rebate option, the total estimated rebate liability would decrease to approximately $52,000.

The Consent Decree has defined the resolution of a number of issues regarding SYSTEM 1, and we believe our actions with respect to SYSTEM 1, including the Transition Plan, were and are not recalls, corrections or removals under FDA regulations. However, there is no assurance that these or other claims will not be brought or that judicial, regulatory, administrative or other legal or enforcement actions, notices or remedies will not be pursued, or that action will not be taken in respect of the Consent Decree, the Transition Plan, SYSTEM 1, or otherwise with respect to regulatory or compliance matters, as described in this note 10 or in various portions of Item 1A. of Part I contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011, filed with the SEC on May 27, 2011.

In December of 2010, we began shipping SYSTEM 1E units, after having received FDA clearance for the SYSTEM 1E chemical indicator, which is used in conjunction with the SYSTEM 1E. We also submitted a 510(k) to FDA for an optional biological indicator strip for use with SYSTEM 1E. As a result of discussions with FDA, we recently filed a de novo submission requesting classification of this monitoring strip in accordance with Section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act. The de novo process is part of the initial classification for new devices. Under the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act, FDA has up to 60 days after the de novo submission to respond to the submission. This spore-based monitoring strip is an optional accessory and is not required for the proper use of SYSTEM 1E. These actions do not affect the prior clearance of the SYSTEM 1E processor or the SYSTEM 1E chemical indicator. There is no assurance regarding the outcome or timing of the de novo submission.

On February 5, 2010, a complaint was filed by a Customer that claimed to have purchased two SYSTEM 1 devices from STERIS, Physicians of Winter Haven LLC d/b/a Day Surgery Center v. STERIS Corp., Case No. 1:1-cv-00264-CAB (N.D. Ohio). The complaint alleged statutory violations, breaches of various warranties, negligence, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment and Plaintiff sought class certification, damages, and other legal and equitable relief including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and an order requiring STERIS to replace, recall or adequately repair the product and/or to take appropriate regulatory action. On February 7, 2011 we entered into a settlement agreement in which we agreed, among other things, to provide various categories of economic relief for members of the settlement class and not object to plaintiff's counsel's application to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses up to a specified amount. Certification of a settlement class was approved and final approval of the settlement was given by the court in the first quarter of fiscal 2012. During the third quarter of fiscal 2011, we recorded in operating expenses a pre-tax charge of approximately $19,796 related to the settlement of these proceedings. The assumptions regarding the amount of this charge included, among others, the portion of class members participating in the settlement and their choice of the categories of economic relief available for such members. These assumptions may be incorrect and the costs of the settlement may be higher or lower than the charge recorded. The actual settlement could be as low as $7,000 and as high as $22,000 depending on the options selected by the class members.

Other civil, criminal, regulatory or other proceedings involving our products or services also could possibly result in judgments, settlements or administrative or judicial decrees requiring us, among other actions, to pay damages or fines or effect recalls, or be subject to other governmental, Customer or other third party claims or remedies, which could materially affect our business, performance, prospects, value, financial condition, and results of operations.

For additional information regarding these matters, see the following portions of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011: “Business - Information with respect to our Business in General - Government Regulation”, and the “Risk Factor” titled: “We may be adversely affected by product liability claims or other legal actions or regulatory or compliance matters, including the Warning Letter and Consent Decree.”, the “Risk Factor” titled: “Our business may be adversely affected as a result of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration notices to healthcare administrators and device manufacturers, and related matters,” and the “Risk Factor” titled “Compliance with the Consent Decree may be more costly and burdensome than anticipated.”

From time to time, STERIS is also involved in legal proceedings as a plaintiff involving contract, patent protection, and other claims asserted by us. Gains, if any, from these proceedings are recognized when they are realized.

We are subject to taxation from United States federal, state, and local, and foreign jurisdictions. Tax positions are settled primarily through the completion of audits within each individual jurisdiction or the closing of statute of limitation. Changes in applicable tax law or other events may also require us to revise past estimates.

We describe income taxes further in Note 8 to our consolidated financial statements titled, “Income Tax Expense”, and in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011 filed with the SEC on May 27, 2011.