2.2.0.7 false Contingencies 10801 - Disclosure - Contingencies true false false false 1 USD false false Unit1 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Unit12 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure xbrli 0 Unit14 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Unit13 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract] 0 bcr_NotesToFinancialStatementsAbstract bcr false na duration Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract] false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract] false 3 Contingencies 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false terselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div> <div> 8. Contingencies General In the ordinary course of business, the company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, including, for example, product liability matters, environmental matters, employment disputes, disputes on agreements and other commercial disputes. In addition, the company operates in an industry susceptible to significant patent legal claims. The company accounts for estimated losses with respect to legal proceedings and claims when such losses are probable and reasonably estimable. Legal costs associated with these matters are expensed as incurred. At any given time, in the ordinary course of business, the company is involved as either a plaintiff or defendant in a number of patent infringement actions. If a third party's patent infringement claim were to be determined against the company, the company might be required to make significant royalty or other payments or might be subject to an injunction or other limitation on its ability to manufacture or distribute one or more products. If a patent owned by or licensed to the company were to be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the company might be required to reduce the value of the patent on the company's balance sheet and to record a corresponding charge, which could be significant in amount. The company believes that any of these proceedings and claims could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Product Liability Matters As of October 21, 2010, approximately 1,780 federal and 1,570 state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,465 plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United States and four putative class actions in various Canadian provinces, have been filed or asserted against the company with respect to its Composix® Kugel® and certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidates ten previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages, (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or (v) attorneys' fees. Approximately 1,545 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by a substantially equivalent number of plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix® Kugel® products beginning in December 2005. On June 22, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred Composix® Kugel® lawsuits pending in federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL court subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of the company in the MDL proceeding. The first MDL trial was completed in April 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the company based on the jury's finding that the company was not liable for the plaintiff's damages. The second MDL trial was completed in August 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs of $1.5 million. The company intends to appeal the judgment. The company expects additional trials of a limited number of the Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. While the company intends to vigorously defend the Hernia Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. As of October 21, 2010, approximately 75 product liability lawsuits have been filed or asserted against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the company's women's health products, principally its Avaulta® line of pelvic floor reconstruction products (collectively, the "Women's Health Product Claims"). The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. With respect to certain of these claims, the company believes that one of its suppliers has an obligation to defend and indemnify the company. On October 12, 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Women's Health Product Claims involving Avaulta® products pending in federal courts nationwide into an MDL for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Approximately 40 of the Women's Health Product Claims involving Avaulta® products are pending in federal courts and have been or will be transferred to the MDL, with the remainder of the Women's Health Product Claims in various state or federal courts. While the company intends to vigorously defend the Women's Health Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. As of October 21, 2010, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 30 plaintiffs have been filed or asserted against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena cava filter products. In addition, a putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the company in California state court on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged to have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter Product Claims"). The putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks (i) medical monitoring, (ii) punitive damages, (iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or (iv) attorneys' fees. While the company intends to vigorously defend the Filter Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. In most product liability litigations of this nature, including the Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims and the Filter Product Claims, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In the majority of these cases, the company has not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions, and consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The company expects that it will receive and review additional information regarding the Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims, the Filter Product Claims and related matters as these cases progress. The company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well as legal defense costs, relating to the Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims and the Filter Product Claims are or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability insurance policies with a limited number of insurance companies. In certain circumstances, insurance companies reserve their rights with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has occurred with respect to certain of these claims. When this occurs, the company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of its insurance policies, and accordingly, may record receivables with respect to amounts due under these policies. Amounts recovered under these policies, however, may be less than the stated coverage limits and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to the claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay claims or that coverage will otherwise be available. Other Legal Matters On November 27, 2006, the company received a subpoena issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, under the authority of the federal healthcare fraud and false claims statutes. The subpoena seeks documents related to the company's brachytherapy business. The company is cooperating with the government's request and has responded to the subpoena. At this stage of the inquiry, the likelihood of an adverse outcome cannot be assessed. The company cannot give any assurances that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. On February 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital ("Southeast") filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated against the company and another manufacturer , Tyco International, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed from the action. The complaint was later amended to add St. Francis Medical Center ("St. Francis") as an additional named plaintiff. The action was re-named as St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern District) when the court denied Southeast's motion to serve as a class representative and dismissed Southeast from the lawsuit. In September 2008, the court granted St. Francis's motion for class certification and determined the measurement period for any potential damages. St. Francis alleges that the company conspired to exclude competitors from the urological catheter market and that the company sought to maintain market share by engaging in conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. St. Francis seeks injunctive relief and has presented an expert report that calculates damages of up to approximately $320 million, a figure that the company believes is unsupported by the facts. The company's expert report establishes that, even assuming a determination adverse to the company, the plaintiffs suffered no damages. In September 2009, the District Court granted the company's summary judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice all counts in this action. St. Francis appealed the Court's decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2010, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court. In October 2010, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted St. Francis's request for a re-hearing of its appeal. The re-hearing is pending. The company intends to defend this matter vigorously. If, however, St. Francis is ultimately successful, any damages awarded under the federal antitrust laws will be subject to statutory trebling and St. Francis's attorneys would be entitled to an award of reasonable fees and costs. At this time, it is not possible to assess the likelihood of an adverse outcome or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential damages. The company cannot give any assurances that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. In December 2007, a U.S. District Court jury in Arizona found that certain of W.L. Gore & Associates Inc.'s ("Gore") ePTFE vascular grafts and stent-grafts infringe the company's patent number 6,436,135. The jury upheld the validity of the patent and awarded the company $185 million in past damages. The jury also found that Gore willfully infringed the patent. In a second phase of the trial, the Court ruled that Gore failed to prove that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In March 2009, the U.S. District Court doubled the jury award to approximately $371 million for damages through June 2007. The Court also awarded the company attorneys' fees of $19 million and prejudgment interest of approximately $20 million. In addition, the Court denied Gore's remaining motions, including its motions for a new trial and to set aside the jury's verdict. In July 2010, the U.S. District Court awarded the company approximately $109 million in additional damages for the period from July 2007 through March 2009. The Court also assessed a royalty rate of between 12.5% and 20%, depending on the product, that will be used to calculate damages for Gore's infringing sales from April 2009 through the expiration of the patent. In August 2010, Gore deposited with the Court an additional approximately $139 million, representing Gore's calculation of royalties for its infringing sales through June 2010. Gore has appealed this matter to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Because the company considers this matter a gain contingency, no amounts have been recorded as of September 30, 2010. The company is subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign environmental protection laws governing, among other things, the generation, storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials and emissions or discharges into the ground, air or water. The company is or may become a party to proceedings brought under various federal laws including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and similar state laws. These proceedings seek to require the owners or operators of contaminated sites, transporters of hazardous materials to the sites and generators of hazardous materials disposed of at the sites to clean up the sites or to reimburse the government for cleanup costs. In most cases, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be liable for any remediation costs. In these cases, the government alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the cleanup costs; however, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup costs among the parties more closely reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site contamination. The company's potential liability varies greatly from site to site. For some sites, the potential liability is de minimis and for others the costs of cleanup have not yet been determined. The company believes that the proceedings and claims described above will likely be resolved over an extended period of time. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, based upon the company's experience, current information and applicable law, the company does not expect these proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and/or liquidity. However, one or more of the proceedings could be material to the company's business and/or results of operations.   Accruals for product liability and other legal matters amounted to $53.8 million and $47.1 million at September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. The company also recorded receivables from insurance companies for unresolved matters amounting to $50.9 million and $33.1 million at September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. </div> </div> 8. Contingencies General In the ordinary course of business, the company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, including, for example, product false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true