Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE I – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding or in a series of related proceedings or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies. During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable rulings in several other matters, however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range. Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $1.690 billion as of September 30, 2017 and $2.023 billion as of December 31, 2016 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The net litigation-related charges recorded in the first nine months of 2017 and 2016 primarily include amounts related to transvaginal surgical mesh product liability cases and claims. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants. In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Quarters ended March 31, 2017 and June 30, 2017, and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated. Patent Litigation On May 19, 2005, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking monetary damages and rescission of contract. After a Markman ruling relating to the Jang patent rights, Dr. Jang stipulated to the dismissal of certain claims alleged in the complaint with a right to appeal and the parties subsequently agreed to settle the other claims. In May 2007, Dr. Jang filed an appeal with respect to the remaining patent claims and in July 2008, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's consent judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further clarification. In August 2011, the District Court entered a stipulated judgment that we did not infringe the Jang patent. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on September 21, 2011 and on August 22, 2012, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On July 8, 2015, a jury found that our Express™ Stent family did not literally infringe a Jang patent, but that the stents infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. The court reserved judgment until the conclusion of further proceedings related to the doctrine of equivalents finding. On September 29, 2015, the court ruled that our Express™ Stent family did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents and, on October 30, 2015, the court entered judgment in our favor. On November 25, 2015, Dr. Jang filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law on literal infringement and/or for a new trial. On February 3, 2016, the court denied Dr. Jang’s motion for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law. Dr. Jang filed a notice of appeal. On September 29, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment that our Express Stent did not infringe the Jang patents and the Company did not owe Dr. Jang any payments. On April 19, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ aortic valve delivery systems infringe eight of our catheter related patents. On October 13, 2016, Edwards filed a petition for inter partes review of one asserted patent with the USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On April 21, 2017, the USPTO denied the petition. On April 19 and 20, 2017, Edwards filed multiple inter partes review petitions against the patents in suit. On September 8, 2017, the court granted a stay of the action pending an inter partes review of the patents in suit. Product Liability Litigation As of October 25, 2017, approximately 48,500 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also approximately 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions, and fewer than 25 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. As of October 25, 2017, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 44,000 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 44,000 cases and claims, approximately 15,500 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products. Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters On May 5, 2014, we were served with a subpoena from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. The subpoena seeks information relating to the launch of the Cognis™ and Teligen™ line of devices in 2008, the performance of those devices from 2007 to 2009 and the operation of the Physician Guided Learning Program. We are cooperating with this request. On May 6, 2016, a qui tam lawsuit in this matter was unsealed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. At the same time, we learned that the U.S. government and the State of California had earlier declined to intervene in that lawsuit on April 15, 2016. The complaint was served on us on July 21, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the plaintiff/relator served an amended complaint that dropped the allegations relating to the Physician Guided Learning Program. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 7, 2016 and the court heard our motion to dismiss on April 5, 2017. On August 29, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and on September 19, 2017, the relator filed a Second Amended Complaint. Other Proceedings In June of 2016, Guidant asserted three arbitrations claims, two of which remain pending, related to three insurance policies for indemnity arising out of previously incurred and satisfied liabilities tied to allegedly defective cardiac rhythm management devices, which Guidant had manufactured. Guidant has claimed indemnities against such liabilities under insurance policies which it purchased for the 2004 policy year. One of these claims was resolved in September 2017. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2016 On September 27, 2010, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Boston Scientific Ltd., Endovascular Technologies, Inc. and we filed suit against Taewoong Medical, Co., Ltd., Standard Sci-Tech, Inc., EndoChoice, Inc. and Sewoon Medical Co., Ltd for infringement of three patents on stents for use in the GI system (the Pulnev and Hankh patents) and against Cook Medical Inc. (and related entities) for infringement of the same three patents and an additional patent (the Thompson patent). The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In December 2010, we amended our complaint to add infringement of six additional Pulnev patents. In January 2011, the defendants filed a counterclaim of invalidity and unenforceability. In September 2011, we amended the complaint to add Chek-Med Systems d/b/a GI Supply as a defendant. On December 22, 2016 the following defendants were dismissed: Taewoong Medical Co., Ltd., GI Supply, Inc., Standard Sci-Tech, Inc., EndoChoice, Inc. and Sewoon Medical Co. The remaining parties reached a settlement and on March 21, 2017, the case was dismissed.

NOTE I – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding or in a series of related proceedings or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies.

During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable rulings in several other matters, however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range.

Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $1.690 billion as of September 30, 2017 and $2.023 billion as of December 31, 2016 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The net litigation-related charges recorded in the first nine months of 2017 and 2016 primarily include amounts related to transvaginal surgical mesh product liability cases and claims. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants.

In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Quarters ended March 31, 2017 and June 30, 2017, and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated.

Patent Litigation

On May 19, 2005, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking monetary damages and rescission of contract. After a Markman ruling relating to the Jang patent rights, Dr. Jang stipulated to the dismissal of certain claims alleged in the complaint with a right to appeal and the parties subsequently agreed to settle the other claims. In May 2007, Dr. Jang filed an appeal with respect to the remaining patent claims and in July 2008, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's consent judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further clarification. In August 2011, the District Court entered a stipulated judgment that we did not infringe the Jang patent. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on September 21, 2011 and on August 22, 2012, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On July 8, 2015, a jury found that our Express™ Stent family did not literally infringe a Jang patent, but that the stents infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. The court reserved judgment until the conclusion of further proceedings related to the doctrine of equivalents finding. On September 29, 2015, the court ruled that our Express™ Stent family did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents and, on October 30, 2015, the court entered judgment in our favor. On November 25, 2015, Dr. Jang filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law on literal infringement and/or for a new trial. On February 3, 2016, the court denied Dr. Jang’s motion for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law. Dr. Jang filed a notice of appeal. On September 29, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment that our Express Stent did not infringe the Jang patents and the Company did not owe Dr. Jang any payments.

On April 19, 2016, a subsidiary of Boston Scientific filed suit against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for patent infringement. We allege that Edwards’ aortic valve delivery systems infringe eight of our catheter related patents. On October 13, 2016, Edwards filed a petition for inter partes review of one asserted patent with the USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On April 21, 2017, the USPTO denied the petition. On April 19 and 20, 2017, Edwards filed multiple inter partes review petitions against the patents in suit. On September 8, 2017, the court granted a stay of the action pending an inter partes review of the patents in suit.

Product Liability Litigation

As of October 25, 2017, approximately 48,500 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also approximately 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions, and fewer than 25 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. As of October 25, 2017, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 44,000 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 44,000 cases and claims, approximately 15,500 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing.

We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products.

Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters

On May 5, 2014, we were served with a subpoena from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. The subpoena seeks information relating to the launch of the Cognis™ and Teligen™ line of devices in 2008, the performance of those devices from 2007 to 2009 and the operation of the Physician Guided Learning Program. We are cooperating with this request. On May 6, 2016, a qui tam lawsuit in this matter was unsealed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. At the same time, we learned that the U.S. government and the State of California had earlier declined to intervene in that lawsuit on April 15, 2016. The complaint was served on us on July 21, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the plaintiff/relator served an amended complaint that dropped the allegations relating to the Physician Guided Learning Program. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 7, 2016 and the court heard our motion to dismiss on April 5, 2017. On August 29, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and on September 19, 2017, the relator filed a Second Amended Complaint.

Other Proceedings

In June of 2016, Guidant asserted three arbitrations claims, two of which remain pending, related to three insurance policies for indemnity arising out of previously incurred and satisfied liabilities tied to allegedly defective cardiac rhythm management devices, which Guidant had manufactured. Guidant has claimed indemnities against such liabilities under insurance policies which it purchased for the 2004 policy year. One of these claims was resolved in September 2017.

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2016

On September 27, 2010, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Boston Scientific Ltd., Endovascular Technologies, Inc. and we filed suit against Taewoong Medical, Co., Ltd., Standard Sci-Tech, Inc., EndoChoice, Inc. and Sewoon Medical Co., Ltd for infringement of three patents on stents for use in the GI system (the Pulnev and Hankh patents) and against Cook Medical Inc. (and related entities) for infringement of the same three patents and an additional patent (the Thompson patent). The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In December 2010, we amended our complaint to add infringement of six additional Pulnev patents. In January 2011, the defendants filed a counterclaim of invalidity and unenforceability. In September 2011, we amended the complaint to add Chek-Med Systems d/b/a GI Supply as a defendant. On December 22, 2016 the following defendants were dismissed: Taewoong Medical Co., Ltd., GI Supply, Inc., Standard Sci-Tech, Inc., EndoChoice, Inc. and Sewoon Medical Co. The remaining parties reached a settlement and on March 21, 2017, the case was dismissed.