Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Oct. 27, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters The Company and its affiliates are involved in a number of legal actions involving product liability, intellectual property disputes, shareholder related matters, environmental proceedings, income tax disputes, and governmental proceedings and investigations, including those described below. With respect to governmental proceedings and investigations, like other companies in our industry, the Company is subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local governmental agencies in the United States and in other jurisdictions in which the Company and its affiliates operate. As a result, interaction with governmental agencies is ongoing. The Company’s standard practice is to cooperate with regulators and investigators in responding to inquiries. The outcomes of these legal actions are not within the Company’s complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, the enforcement agencies or private claimants seek damages, as well as other civil or criminal remedies (including injunctions barring the sale of products that are the subject of the proceeding), that could require significant expenditures, result in lost revenues, or limit the Company's ability to conduct business in the applicable jurisdictions. The Company records a liability in the consolidated financial statements on an undiscounted basis for loss contingencies related to legal actions when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount may be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and may be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and governmental proceedings involving the Company are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in early procedural stages, with incomplete scientific facts or legal discovery, involve unsubstantiated or indeterminate claims for damages, potentially involve penalties, fines or punitive damages, or could result in a change in business practice. At October 27, 2017 and April 28, 2017, accrued litigation was approximately $1.0 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively. The ultimate cost to the Company with respect to accrued litigation could be materially different than the amount of the current estimates and accruals and could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, and/or cash flows. The Company includes accrued litigation in other accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the legal matters discussed below, the Company believes it is possible that the costs associated with these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, and/or cash flows. Product Liability Matters Sprint Fidelis In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. INFUSE Litigation The Company estimated law firms representing approximately 6,000 claimants asserted or intended to assert personal injury claims against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts involving the INFUSE bone graft product. As of June 1, 2017, the Company had reached agreements to settle substantially all of these claims, resolving this litigation. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above. Pelvic Mesh Litigation The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries resulting from the implantation of those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S. Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. In fiscal year 2016, Bard paid the Company $121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these claims. In May 2017, the agreement with Bard was amended to extend the terms to apply to up to an additional 5,000 claims. That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the Company and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard’s obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants have asserted or may assert claims involving products manufactured by Covidien’s subsidiaries. As of December 1, 2017, the Company had reached agreements to settle approximately 13,400 of these claims. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above. Patent Litigation Ethicon On December 14, 2011, Ethicon filed an action against Covidien in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging patent infringement and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. On January 22, 2014, the district court entered summary judgment in Covidien's favor, and the majority of this ruling was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on August 7, 2015. Following appeal, the case was remanded back to the District Court with respect to one patent. On January 21, 2016, Covidien filed a second action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking a declaration of non-infringement with respect to a second set of patents held by Ethicon. The court consolidated this second action with the remaining patent issues from the first action. Following consolidation of the cases, Ethicon dismissed 6 of the asserted patents, leaving a single asserted patent. In addition to claims of non-infringement, the Company asserts an affirmative defense of invalidity. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Shareholder Related Matters INFUSE On March 12, 2012, Charlotte Kokocinski (Kokocinski) filed a shareholder derivative action against both Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, setting forth certain allegations, including a claim that defendants violated various purported duties in connection with the INFUSE bone graft product and otherwise. On March 25, 2013, the District Court dismissed the case without prejudice, and Kokocinski subsequently filed an amended complaint. On March 30, 2015, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing the case with prejudice. Kokocinski sought reconsideration of that decision, and, on September 30, 2015, the District Court denied Kokocinski’s request for reconsideration. Kokocinski appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On March 1, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court’s dismissal of the case with prejudice, and on April 11, 2017, the Eighth Circuit rejected Kokocinski’s request for reconsideration. In September 2017, Kokocinski filed a petition for certiorari requesting review of the Eighth Circuit decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading public statements and engaged in a scheme to defraud regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The matters were consolidated in September 2013, and in the consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011. On September 30, 2015, the District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and in December of 2016 the Eighth Circuit Court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. COVIDIEN ACQUISITION On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien transaction. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2015, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its order and opinion granting Medtronic’s motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition on the issue of whether most of the original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative under Minnesota law. In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. HEARTWARE On January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers’ Retirement Fund Association filed a putative class action complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against HeartWare on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of HeartWare from June 10, 2014 through January 11, 2016 (the “Class Period”). The Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims HeartWare and one of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements about, among other things, HeartWare’s response to a June 2014 U.S. FDA warning letter, the development of the Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device (MVAD) System and the proposed acquisition of Valtech Cardio Ltd. The Complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of HeartWare’s stock during the Class Period. In August of 2016 the Company acquired HeartWare. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above. Environmental Proceedings The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites. These projects relate to a variety of activities, including removal of solvents, metals and other hazardous substances from soil and groundwater. The ultimate cost of site cleanup and timing of future cash flows is difficult to predict given uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations, and alternative cleanup methods. The Company is a successor to a company which owned and operated a chemical manufacturing facility in Orrington, Maine from 1967 until 1982, and is responsible for the costs of completing an environmental site investigation as required by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). MDEP served a compliance order on Mallinckrodt LLC and U.S. Surgical Corporation, subsidiaries of Covidien, in December 2008, which included a directive to remove a significant volume of soils at the site. After a hearing on the compliance order before the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (Maine Board) to challenge the terms of the compliance order, the Maine Board modified the MDEP order and issued a final order requiring removal of two landfills, capping of the remaining three landfills, installation of a groundwater extraction system and long-term monitoring of the site and the three remaining landfills. The Company has proceeded with implementation of the investigation and remediation at the site in accordance with the MDEP order as modified by the Maine Board order. The Company has also been involved in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Maine People’s Alliance. Plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring Covidien to conduct extensive studies of mercury contamination of the Penobscot River and Bay and options for remediating such contamination, and to perform appropriate remedial activities, if necessary. On July 29, 2002, following a March 2002 trial, the District Court entered an opinion and order which held that conditions in the Penobscot River and Bay may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment and that Covidien was liable for the cost of performing a study of the river and bay. The District Court subsequently appointed an independent study panel to oversee the study and ordered Covidien to pay costs associated with the study. A report issued by the study panel contains recommendations for a variety of potential remedial options which could be implemented individually or in a variety of combinations, and included preliminary cost estimates for a variety of potential remedial options, which the report describes as “very rough estimates of cost,” ranging from $25 million to $235 million. The report indicates that these costs are subject to uncertainties, and that before any remedial option is implemented, further engineering studies and engineering design work are necessary to determine the feasibility of the proposed remedial options. In June of 2014, a trial was held to determine if remediation was necessary and feasible, and on September 2, 2015, the District Court issued an order concluding that further engineering study and engineering design work is appropriate to determine the nature and extent of remediation in the Penobscot River and Bay. In January of 2016, the Court appointed an engineering firm to conduct the next phase of the study. The study is targeted for completion in calendar year 2018. The Company's accrued expenses for environmental proceedings are included within accrued litigation as discussed above. Government Matters Medtronic has received subpoenas or document requests from the Attorneys General in Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Illinois, and Washington seeking information regarding sales, marketing, clinical, and other information relating to the INFUSE bone graft product. The Company's accrued expenses for these matters are included within accrued litigation as discussed above. On May 2, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts issued a subpoena to ev3, a subsidiary of the Company, requesting production of documents relating to sales and marketing and other issues in connection with several neurovascular products. The matters under investigation relate to activities prior to Covidien's acquisition of ev3 in 2010. ev3 complied as required with the subpoena and cooperated with the investigation. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above. On September 2, 2014, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, issued a subpoena requesting production of documents relating to sales and marketing practices associated with certain of ev3’s peripheral vascular products. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Income Taxes In March 2009, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some, but not all matters related to these fiscal years. On December 23, 2010, the IRS issued a statutory notice of deficiency with respect to the remaining issues. Medtronic, Inc. filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court on March 21, 2011 objecting to the deficiency. During October and November 2012, Medtronic, Inc. reached resolution with the IRS on various matters, including the deductibility of a settlement payment. Medtronic, Inc. and the IRS agreed to hold one issue, the calculation of amounts eligible for the one-time repatriation holiday, because such specific issue was being addressed by other taxpayers in litigation with the IRS. The remaining unresolved issue for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 relates to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico, which is one of the Company's key manufacturing sites. The U.S. Tax Court proceeding with respect to this issue began on February 3, 2015 and ended on March 12, 2015. On June 9, 2016, the U.S. Tax court issued its opinion with respect to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The U.S. Tax Court generally rejected the IRS’s position, but also made certain modifications to the Medtronic, Inc. tax returns as filed. During November 2016, Medtronic and the IRS entered into a Stipulation of Settled Issues with the Tax Court which resolved the one-time repatriation holiday as an outstanding issue unless either party decided to appeal the Tax Court Opinion and a final decision is inconsistent with the U.S. Tax Court Opinion. The U.S. Tax Court entered their final decision on January 25, 2017. On April 21, 2017, the IRS filed their Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit regarding the Tax Court Opinion. A hearing date for the Appeal has not been set. In October 2011, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some, but not all matters related to these fiscal years. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2016, the Company finalized its agreement with the IRS on the proposed adjustments associated with the tax effects of the Company's acquisition of Kyphon Inc. (Kyphon). The settlement was consistent with the certain tax adjustment recorded during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2017, an expected settlement was reached with the IRS for all outstanding issues for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 except for the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico for the businesses that are the subject of the U.S. Tax Court Case for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. In April 2014, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some but not all matters related to these fiscal years. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2017, an expected settlement was reached with the IRS for all outstanding issues for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 except for the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico for the businesses that are the subject of the U.S. Tax Court Case for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. In May 2017, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some but not all matters related to these fiscal years. The significant issues that remain unresolved relate to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico, and proposed adjustments associated with the utilization of certain net operating losses. The Company disagrees with the IRS and will attempt to resolve these matters at the IRS Appellate level. Medtronic, Inc.’s fiscal years 2015 and 2016 U.S. federal income tax returns are currently being audited by the IRS. Covidien and the IRS have concluded and reached agreement on its audit of Covidien’s U.S. federal income tax returns for all tax years through 2009. The IRS continues to audit Covidien’s U.S. federal income tax returns for the years 2010 through 2012. The statute of limitations for Covidien’s 2013 U.S. federal income tax returns lapsed during the first quarter of fiscal year 2018. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the income tax matters discussed above, the Company believes it is possible that charges associated with these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, and/or cash flows. See Note 12 for additional discussion of income taxes. Guarantees As a result of the acquisition of Covidien, the Company has guarantee commitments and indemnifications with Tyco International, TE Connectivity Ltd. (TE Connectivity), and Mallinckrodt plc (Mallinckrodt) which relate to certain contingent tax liabilities. On June 29, 2007, Covidien entered into the Tax Sharing Agreement, under which Covidien shares responsibility for certain of its, Tyco International’s and TE Connectivity’s income tax liabilities for periods prior to Covidien’s 2007 separation from Tyco International (2007 separation). Covidien, Tyco International and TE Connectivity share 42 percent, 27 percent, and 31 percent, respectively, of U.S. income tax liabilities that arise from adjustments made by tax authorities to Covidien's, Tyco International’s and TE Connectivity’s U.S. income tax returns, certain income tax liabilities arising from adjustments made by tax authorities to intercompany transactions or similar adjustments, and certain taxes attributable to internal transactions undertaken in anticipation of the 2007 separation. If Tyco International and TE Connectivity default on their obligations to the Company under the Tax Sharing Agreement, the Company would be liable for the entire amount of these liabilities. All costs and expenses associated with the management of these tax liabilities are being shared equally among the parties. In connection with the 2007 separation, all tax liabilities associated with Covidien business became Covidien’s tax liabilities. Following Covidien’s spin-off of its Pharmaceuticals business to Covidien shareholders through a distribution of all the outstanding ordinary shares of Mallinkrodt (2013 separation), Mallinckrodt became the primary obligor to the taxing authorities for the tax liabilities attributable to its subsidiaries, a significant portion of which relate to periods prior to the 2007 separation. However, Covidien remains the sole party subject to the Tax Sharing Agreement. Accordingly, Mallinckrodt does not share in the Company’s liability to Tyco International and TE Connectivity, nor in the receivable that the Company has from Tyco International and TE Connectivity. If any party to the Tax Sharing Agreement were to default in its obligation to another party to pay its share of the distribution taxes that arise as a result of no party’s fault, each non-defaulting party would be required to pay, equally with any other non-defaulting party, the amounts in default. In addition, if another party to the Tax Sharing Agreement that is responsible for all or a portion of an income tax liability were to default in its payment of such liability to a taxing authority, the Company could be legally liable under applicable tax law for such liabilities and be required to make additional tax payments. Accordingly, under certain circumstances, the Company may be obligated to pay amounts in excess of the Company’s agreed upon share of Covidien's, Tyco International’s and TE Connectivity’s tax liabilities. The Company has used available information to develop its best estimates for certain assets and liabilities related to periods prior to the 2007 separation, including amounts subject to or impacted by the provisions of the Tax Sharing Agreement. The actual amounts that the Company may be required to ultimately accrue or pay under the Tax Sharing Agreement, however, could vary depending upon the outcome of the unresolved tax matters. Final determination of the balances will be made in subsequent periods, primarily related to certain pre-2007 separation tax liabilities and tax years open for examination. These balances will also be impacted by the filing of final or amended income tax returns in certain jurisdictions where those returns include a combination of Tyco International, Covidien and/or TE Connectivity legal entities for periods prior to the 2007 separation. The resolutions with the U.S. Tax Court and IRS Appeals for fiscal years 1997 through 2007 were finalized during May 2016. However, the Tax Sharing Agreement remains in place with respect to income tax liabilities that are not the subject of such resolution. In conjunction with the 2013 separation, Mallinckrodt assumed the tax liabilities that are attributable to its subsidiaries, and Covidien indemnified Mallinckrodt to the extent that such tax liabilities arising from periods prior to 2013 exceed $200 million, net of certain tax benefits realized. In addition, in connection with the 2013 separation, Covidien entered into certain other guarantee commitments and indemnifications with Mallinckrodt. See Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 28, 2017 for additional information. As part of the Company’s Minimally Invasive Therapies Group sale of the Patient Care, Deep Vein Thrombosis, and Nutritional Insufficiency businesses to Cardinal on July 29, 2017, the Company has indemnified Cardinal for certain contingent tax liabilities related to the divested businesses that existed prior to the date of divestiture. The actual amounts that the Company may be required to ultimately accrue or pay could vary depending upon the outcome of the unresolved tax matters. Final determination of the balances will be made in subsequent periods, the majority of which the Company expects to be resolved within fiscal year 2018. In the normal course of business, the Company and/or its affiliates periodically enter into agreements that require one or more of them to indemnify customers or suppliers for specific risks, such as claims for injury or property damage arising out of the Company or its affiliates’ products or the negligence of any of their personnel or claims alleging that any of their products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property. The Company also offers warranties on various products. The Company’s maximum exposure under these guarantees is unable to be estimated. Historically, the Company has not experienced significant losses on these types of guarantees. The Company believes the ultimate resolution of the above guarantees is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

The Company and its affiliates are involved in a number of legal actions involving product liability, intellectual property disputes, shareholder related matters, environmental proceedings, income tax disputes, and governmental proceedings and investigations, including those described below. With respect to governmental proceedings and investigations, like other companies in our industry, the Company is subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local governmental agencies in the United States and in other jurisdictions in which the Company and its affiliates operate. As a result, interaction with governmental agencies is ongoing. The Company’s standard practice is to cooperate with regulators and investigators in responding to inquiries. The outcomes of these legal actions are not within the Company’s complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, the enforcement agencies or private claimants seek damages, as well as other civil or criminal remedies (including injunctions barring the sale of products that are the subject of the proceeding), that could require significant expenditures, result in lost revenues, or limit the Company's ability to conduct business in the applicable jurisdictions.

The Company records a liability in the consolidated financial statements on an undiscounted basis for loss contingencies related to legal actions when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount may be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and may be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation and governmental proceedings involving the Company are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in early procedural stages, with incomplete scientific facts or legal discovery, involve unsubstantiated or indeterminate claims for damages, potentially involve penalties, fines or punitive damages, or could result in a change in business practice. At October 27, 2017 and April 28, 2017, accrued litigation was approximately $1.0 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively. The ultimate cost to the Company with respect to accrued litigation could be materially different than the amount of the current estimates and accruals and could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, and/or cash flows. The Company includes accrued litigation in other accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the legal matters discussed below, the Company believes it is possible that the costs associated with these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, and/or cash flows.

Product Liability Matters

Sprint Fidelis

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

INFUSE Litigation

The Company estimated law firms representing approximately 6,000 claimants asserted or intended to assert personal injury claims against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts involving the INFUSE bone graft product. As of June 1, 2017, the Company had reached agreements to settle substantially all of these claims, resolving this litigation. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above.

Pelvic Mesh Litigation

The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries resulting from the implantation of those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S. Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. In fiscal year 2016, Bard paid the Company $121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these claims. In May 2017, the agreement with Bard was amended to extend the terms to apply to up to an additional 5,000 claims. That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the Company and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard’s obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants have asserted or may assert claims involving products manufactured by Covidien’s subsidiaries. As of December 1, 2017, the Company had reached agreements to settle approximately 13,400 of these claims. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above.

Patent Litigation

Ethicon

On December 14, 2011, Ethicon filed an action against Covidien in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging patent infringement and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. On January 22, 2014, the district court entered summary judgment in Covidien's favor, and the majority of this ruling was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on August 7, 2015. Following appeal, the case was remanded back to the District Court with respect to one patent. On January 21, 2016, Covidien filed a second action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking a declaration of non-infringement with respect to a second set of patents held by Ethicon. The court consolidated this second action with the remaining patent issues from the first action. Following consolidation of the cases, Ethicon dismissed 6 of the asserted patents, leaving a single asserted patent. In addition to claims of non-infringement, the Company asserts an affirmative defense of invalidity. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Shareholder Related Matters

INFUSE

On March 12, 2012, Charlotte Kokocinski (Kokocinski) filed a shareholder derivative action against both Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, setting forth certain allegations, including a claim that defendants violated various purported duties in connection with the INFUSE bone graft product and otherwise. On March 25, 2013, the District Court dismissed the case without prejudice, and Kokocinski subsequently filed an amended complaint. On March 30, 2015, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing the case with prejudice. Kokocinski sought reconsideration of that decision, and, on September 30, 2015, the District Court denied Kokocinski’s request for reconsideration. Kokocinski appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On March 1, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court’s dismissal of the case with prejudice, and on April 11, 2017, the Eighth Circuit rejected Kokocinski’s request for reconsideration. In September 2017, Kokocinski filed a petition for certiorari requesting review of the Eighth Circuit decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading public statements and engaged in a scheme to defraud regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The matters were consolidated in September 2013, and in the consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011. On September 30, 2015, the District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and in December of 2016 the Eighth Circuit Court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

COVIDIEN ACQUISITION

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien transaction. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2015, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its order and opinion granting Medtronic’s motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition on the issue of whether most of the original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative under Minnesota law. In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

HEARTWARE

On January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers’ Retirement Fund Association filed a putative class action complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against HeartWare on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of HeartWare from June 10, 2014 through January 11, 2016 (the “Class Period”). The Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims HeartWare and one of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements about, among other things, HeartWare’s response to a June 2014 U.S. FDA warning letter, the development of the Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device (MVAD) System and the proposed acquisition of Valtech Cardio Ltd. The Complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of HeartWare’s stock during the Class Period. In August of 2016 the Company acquired HeartWare. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above.

Environmental Proceedings

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

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

The Company has proceeded with implementation of the investigation and remediation at the site in accordance with the MDEP order as modified by the Maine Board order.

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

On July 29, 2002, following a March 2002 trial, the District Court entered an opinion and order which held that conditions in the Penobscot River and Bay may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment and that Covidien was liable for the cost of performing a study of the river and bay. The District Court subsequently appointed an independent study panel to oversee the study and ordered Covidien to pay costs associated with the study. A report issued by the study panel contains recommendations for a variety of potential remedial options which could be implemented individually or in a variety of combinations, and included preliminary cost estimates for a variety of potential remedial options, which the report describes as “very rough estimates of cost,” ranging from $25 million to $235 million. The report indicates that these costs are subject to uncertainties, and that before any remedial option is implemented, further engineering studies and engineering design work are necessary to determine the feasibility of the proposed remedial options. In June of 2014, a trial was held to determine if remediation was necessary and feasible, and on September 2, 2015, the District Court issued an order concluding that further engineering study and engineering design work is appropriate to determine the nature and extent of remediation in the Penobscot River and Bay. In January of 2016, the Court appointed an engineering firm to conduct the next phase of the study. The study is targeted for completion in calendar year 2018.

The Company's accrued expenses for environmental proceedings are included within accrued litigation as discussed above.

Government Matters

Medtronic has received subpoenas or document requests from the Attorneys General in Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Illinois, and Washington seeking information regarding sales, marketing, clinical, and other information relating to the INFUSE bone graft product. The Company's accrued expenses for these matters are included within accrued litigation as discussed above.

On May 2, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts issued a subpoena to ev3, a subsidiary of the Company, requesting production of documents relating to sales and marketing and other issues in connection with several neurovascular products. The matters under investigation relate to activities prior to Covidien's acquisition of ev3 in 2010. ev3 complied as required with the subpoena and cooperated with the investigation. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above.

On September 2, 2014, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, issued a subpoena requesting production of documents relating to sales and marketing practices associated with certain of ev3’s peripheral vascular products. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Income Taxes

In March 2009, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some, but not all matters related to these fiscal years. On December 23, 2010, the IRS issued a statutory notice of deficiency with respect to the remaining issues. Medtronic, Inc. filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court on March 21, 2011 objecting to the deficiency. During October and November 2012, Medtronic, Inc. reached resolution with the IRS on various matters, including the deductibility of a settlement payment. Medtronic, Inc. and the IRS agreed to hold one issue, the calculation of amounts eligible for the one-time repatriation holiday, because such specific issue was being addressed by other taxpayers in litigation with the IRS. The remaining unresolved issue for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 relates to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico, which is one of the Company's key manufacturing sites. The U.S. Tax Court proceeding with respect to this issue began on February 3, 2015 and ended on March 12, 2015. On June 9, 2016, the U.S. Tax court issued its opinion with respect to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The U.S. Tax Court generally rejected the IRS’s position, but also made certain modifications to the Medtronic, Inc. tax returns as filed. During November 2016, Medtronic and the IRS entered into a Stipulation of Settled Issues with the Tax Court which resolved the one-time repatriation holiday as an outstanding issue unless either party decided to appeal the Tax Court Opinion and a final decision is inconsistent with the U.S. Tax Court Opinion. The U.S. Tax Court entered their final decision on January 25, 2017. On April 21, 2017, the IRS filed their Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit regarding the Tax Court Opinion. A hearing date for the Appeal has not been set.

In October 2011, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some, but not all matters related to these fiscal years. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2016, the Company finalized its agreement with the IRS on the proposed adjustments associated with the tax effects of the Company's acquisition of Kyphon Inc. (Kyphon). The settlement was consistent with the certain tax adjustment recorded during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2017, an expected settlement was reached with the IRS for all outstanding issues for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 except for the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico for the businesses that are the subject of the U.S. Tax Court Case for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.

In April 2014, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some but not all matters related to these fiscal years. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2017, an expected settlement was reached with the IRS for all outstanding issues for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 except for the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico for the businesses that are the subject of the U.S. Tax Court Case for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.

In May 2017, the IRS issued its audit report on Medtronic, Inc. for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014. Medtronic, Inc. reached agreement with the IRS on some but not all matters related to these fiscal years. The significant issues that remain unresolved relate to the allocation of income between Medtronic, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary operating in Puerto Rico, and proposed adjustments associated with the utilization of certain net operating losses. The Company disagrees with the IRS and will attempt to resolve these matters at the IRS Appellate level.

Medtronic, Inc.’s fiscal years 2015 and 2016 U.S. federal income tax returns are currently being audited by the IRS.

Covidien and the IRS have concluded and reached agreement on its audit of Covidien’s U.S. federal income tax returns for all tax years through 2009. The IRS continues to audit Covidien’s U.S. federal income tax returns for the years 2010 through 2012. The statute of limitations for Covidien’s 2013 U.S. federal income tax returns lapsed during the first quarter of fiscal year 2018.

While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the income tax matters discussed above, the Company believes it is possible that charges associated with these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, and/or cash flows.

See Note 12 for additional discussion of income taxes.

Guarantees

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

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

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

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

The Company has used available information to develop its best estimates for certain assets and liabilities related to periods prior to the 2007 separation, including amounts subject to or impacted by the provisions of the Tax Sharing Agreement. The actual amounts that the Company may be required to ultimately accrue or pay under the Tax Sharing Agreement, however, could vary depending upon the outcome of the unresolved tax matters. Final determination of the balances will be made in subsequent periods, primarily related to certain pre-2007 separation tax liabilities and tax years open for examination. These balances will also be impacted by the filing of final or amended income tax returns in certain jurisdictions where those returns include a combination of Tyco International, Covidien and/or TE Connectivity legal entities for periods prior to the 2007 separation. The resolutions with the U.S. Tax Court and IRS Appeals for fiscal years 1997 through 2007 were finalized during May 2016. However, the Tax Sharing Agreement remains in place with respect to income tax liabilities that are not the subject of such resolution.

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

See Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 28, 2017 for additional information.

As part of the Company’s Minimally Invasive Therapies Group sale of the Patient Care, Deep Vein Thrombosis, and Nutritional Insufficiency businesses to Cardinal on July 29, 2017, the Company has indemnified Cardinal for certain contingent tax liabilities related to the divested businesses that existed prior to the date of divestiture. The actual amounts that the Company may be required to ultimately accrue or pay could vary depending upon the outcome of the unresolved tax matters. Final determination of the balances will be made in subsequent periods, the majority of which the Company expects to be resolved within fiscal year 2018.

In the normal course of business, the Company and/or its affiliates periodically enter into agreements that require one or more of them to indemnify customers or suppliers for specific risks, such as claims for injury or property damage arising out of the Company or its affiliates’ products or the negligence of any of their personnel or claims alleging that any of their products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property. The Company also offers warranties on various products. The Company’s maximum exposure under these guarantees is unable to be estimated. Historically, the Company has not experienced significant losses on these types of guarantees.

The Company believes the ultimate resolution of the above guarantees is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated earnings, financial position, or cash flows.