Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 01, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies [Text Block]	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In view of the inherent difficulties of predicting the outcome of various types of legal proceedings, we cannot determine the ultimate resolution of the matters described below. We establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when losses associated with the claims become probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved for those matters. For matters where the likelihood or extent of a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably be estimated as of October 1, 2016, we have not recorded a loss reserve. If certain of these matters are determined against the Company, there could be a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. We currently believe we have valid defenses to the claims in these lawsuits and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously regardless of whether or not we have a loss reserve. Other than what is disclosed below, we do not expect the outcome of the litigation matters to which we are currently subject to, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Securities Litigation On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the District of New Jersey (Roofers’ Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the Company and the former executive to defend against the hostile takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleges that we provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016. The case is in an early stage. Four different plaintiff groups have sought appointment as lead plaintiff/lead counsel. The court will decide who will represent the purported class. Once the court has chosen a lead plaintiff, the plaintiff will likely file an amended complaint and the defendants will then have an opportunity to make a motion to dismiss the case. On July 19, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities class action against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the District of New Jersey. (Wilson v. Papa, et al.) The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who sold put options on the Company shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016. In general, the allegations and the claims are the same as those made in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. Subsequently, this shareholder filed papers in the Roofers' Pension Fund case as one of four candidates seeking to be named lead plaintiff or co-lead plaintiff in that case. The Wilson plaintiff also filed a motion to have the Wilson case consolidated with the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The court has not yet acted on the motion to consolidate or the motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a securities class action against the Company and five individual defendants: Mr. Papa, our former Executive Vice President and General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, our Chief Executive Officer John Hendrickson, and our Board members Gary Kunkle, Jr. and Laurie Brlas alleging violations of Israeli law in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Schwieger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.). On June 15, 2016, Perrigo filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the securities class action pending in the New Jersey federal court. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. The Israeli court granted the motion on the same day, and the action is stayed. Eltroxin During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by our subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included our subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers who provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory healthcare system in Israel. One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight applications were consolidated into one application. The applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application generally alleges that the respondents: (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation. Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May 17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. On June 16, 2015, Perrigo submitted a motion for permission to appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. Perrigo has filed its statement of defense to the underlying proceedings and the underlying proceedings have been stayed pending a decision on the motion to appeal. During a July 11, 2016 hearing on Perrigo’s motion to appeal the certification decision, the court noted that permission should be granted to Perrigo's appeal given issues with the scope of the District Court's decision. The court ultimately recommended the parties pursue mediation, noting that no decision on Perrigo's motion to appeal will be made pending the results of the mediation. The parties are now engaged in the mediation process. At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome or the liability, if any, associated with this claim. Tysabri^® Product Liability Lawsuits Perrigo and collaborator Biogen are co-defendants in product liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy, a serious brain infection, and serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in patients taking Tysabri^®. Perrigo and Biogen will each be responsible for 50% of losses and expenses arising out of any Tysabri^® product liability claims. During calendar year 2016, one case in the U.S. was settled and two others were dismissed with prejudice. While the remaining lawsuits will be vigorously defended, management cannot predict how these cases will be resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits could result in substantial judgments against the Company.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In view of the inherent difficulties of predicting the outcome of various types of legal proceedings, we cannot determine the ultimate resolution of the matters described below. We establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when losses associated with the claims become probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved for those matters. For matters where the likelihood or extent of a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably be estimated as of October 1, 2016, we have not recorded a loss reserve. If certain of these matters are determined against the Company, there could be a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. We currently believe we have valid defenses to the claims in these lawsuits and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously regardless of whether or not we have a loss reserve. Other than what is disclosed below, we do not expect the outcome of the litigation matters to which we are currently subject to, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Securities Litigation

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the District of New Jersey (Roofers’ Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the Company and the former executive to defend against the hostile takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleges that we provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016. The case is in an early stage. Four different plaintiff groups have sought appointment as lead plaintiff/lead counsel. The court will decide who will represent the purported class. Once the court has chosen a lead plaintiff, the plaintiff will likely file an amended complaint and the defendants will then have an opportunity to make a motion to dismiss the case.

On July 19, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities class action against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the District of New Jersey. (Wilson v. Papa, et al.) The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who sold put options on the Company shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016. In general, the allegations and the claims are the same as those made in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. Subsequently, this shareholder filed papers in the Roofers' Pension Fund case as one of four candidates seeking to be named lead plaintiff or co-lead plaintiff in that case. The Wilson plaintiff also filed a motion to have the Wilson case consolidated with the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The court has not yet acted on the motion to consolidate or the motion for appointment as lead plaintiff.

On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a securities class action against the Company and five individual defendants: Mr. Papa, our former Executive Vice President and General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, our Chief Executive Officer John Hendrickson, and our Board members Gary Kunkle, Jr. and Laurie Brlas alleging violations of Israeli law in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Schwieger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.). On June 15, 2016, Perrigo filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the securities class action pending in the New Jersey federal court. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. The Israeli court granted the motion on the same day, and the action is stayed.

Eltroxin

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by our subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included our subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers who provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory healthcare system in Israel.

One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight applications were consolidated into one application. The applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application generally alleges that the respondents: (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May 17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

On June 16, 2015, Perrigo submitted a motion for permission to appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. Perrigo has filed its statement of defense to the underlying proceedings and the underlying proceedings have been stayed pending a decision on the motion to appeal.

During a July 11, 2016 hearing on Perrigo’s motion to appeal the certification decision, the court noted that permission should be granted to Perrigo's appeal given issues with the scope of the District Court's decision. The court ultimately recommended the parties pursue mediation, noting that no decision on Perrigo's motion to appeal will be made pending the results of the mediation. The parties are now engaged in the mediation process. At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome or the liability, if any, associated with this claim.

Tysabri^® Product Liability Lawsuits

Perrigo and collaborator Biogen are co-defendants in product liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy, a serious brain infection, and serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in patients taking Tysabri^®. Perrigo and Biogen will each be responsible for 50% of losses and expenses arising out of any Tysabri^® product liability claims. During calendar year 2016, one case in the U.S. was settled and two others were dismissed with prejudice. While the remaining lawsuits will be vigorously defended, management cannot predict how these cases will be resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits could result in substantial judgments against the Company.