Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Apr. 26, 2019
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 and commercial 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 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 April 26, 2019 and April 27, 2018, accrued litigation was approximately $0.5 billion and $0.9 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. The Company has recognized an expense for probable and estimable damages related to this matter, and during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019 the Company paid out previously accrued settlement amounts with no admission of liability, bringing this matter to a conclusion. 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, and during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019 the Company paid out previously accrued settlement amounts with no admission of liability, bringing this matter to a conclusion. Pelvic Mesh Litigation The Company 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 June 1, 2019, the Company had reached agreements to settle approximately 15,400 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 six 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. Sasso The Company is involved in litigation in Indiana relating to certain patent and royalty disputes with Dr. Sasso under agreements originally entered into in 1999 and 2001. On November 28, 2018, a jury in Indiana state court returned a verdict against the Company for approximately $112 million. The Company has strong arguments to appeal the verdict and has filed post-trial motions and appeals with the appropriate appellate courts. The Company has not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because it does not currently believe a loss is probable under U.S. GAAP. Shareholder Related 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 March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an 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, and reversed in part. On April 19, 2016, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition to review 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, which are ongoing. 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. In October of 2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter, and in January 2019, the settlement amount was deposited into a qualified settlement fund to be distributed following final court approval. In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019, the court approved the settlement, bringing this matter to a conclusion. Environmental Proceedings The Company 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. Since the early 2000s, the Company or its predecessors have 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 the Company's predecessor 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. Following a trial in March 2002, the Court held that conditions in the Penobscot River and Bay may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment and that the Company’s predecessor was liable for the cost of performing a study of the River and Bay. Following a second trial in June 2014, the Court ordered that further engineering study and engineering design work was needed to determine the nature and extent of remediation in the Penobscot River and Bay. The Court also appointed an engineering firm to conduct such studies and issue a report on potential remediation alternatives. In connection with these proceedings, reports have been produced including a variety of cost estimates for a variety of potential remedial options. A third trial to determine the course of remediation to be pursued is scheduled to occur in November of 2019. The Company's accrued expenses for environmental proceedings are included within accrued litigation as discussed above. Government Matters Since 2017, the Company has been responding to requests from the Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for information about business practices relating to a neurovascular product developed and first marketed by ev3 and Covidien. The Company has provided information in response to these requests and is cooperating with the inquiry. The Company has not recognized an expense in connection with any ongoing investigation, because any such 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 the ongoing information requests. 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. 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 reviewed this dispute, and on June 9, 2016, issued its opinion with respect to the allocation of income between the parties 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. 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. Oral argument for the Appeal occurred on March 14, 2018. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued their opinion on August 16, 2018, and remanded the case back to the U.S. Tax Court for additional factual findings. 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. The remaining unresolved issue for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 relates to 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. The remaining unresolved issue for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 relates to 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 2012. The statute of limitations for Covidien’s 2013 and 2014 U.S. federal income tax returns lapsed during the first quarter of fiscal years 2018 and 2019, respectively. Covidien's fiscal year 2015 U.S. federal income tax returns are currently being audited by the IRS. 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 14 for additional discussion of income taxes. Guarantees As a result of the acquisition of Covidien, the Company has a guarantee commitment related to certain contingent tax liabilities as a party to the Tax Sharing Agreement that was entered into on June 29, 2007, between Covidien, Tyco International (now Johnson Controls), and Tyco Electronics (now TE Connectivity), associated with the spin-off from Tyco. The Tax Sharing Agreement covers certain income tax liabilities for periods prior to and including the spin-off. Medtronic’s share of the income tax liabilities for these periods is 42 percent, with Johnson Controls and TE Connectivity share being 27 percent, and 31 percent, respectively. If Johnson Controls 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. The most significant amounts at risk under this Tax Sharing Agreement were resolved with the U.S. Tax Court and IRS Appeals resolutions reached in May 2016. However, the Tax Sharing Agreement remains in place with respect to income tax liabilities that are not the subject of such resolution, including certain state and international tax matters that remain open. 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 tax years that remain 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 Tyco Electronics legal entities for periods prior to the 2007 separation. As part of the Company’s 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. In the normal course of business, the Company and/or its affiliates periodically enter into agreements that require one or more of the Company and/or its affiliates to indemnify customers or suppliers for specific risks, such as claims for injury or property damage arising as a result of the Company or its affiliates’ products, the negligence of the Company's personnel, or claims alleging that the Company's products infringe on 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.

The Company and its affiliates are involved in a number of legal actions involving product liability, intellectual property and commercial 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 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 April 26, 2019 and April 27, 2018, accrued litigation was approximately $0.5 billion and $0.9 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.

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. The Company has recognized an expense for probable and estimable damages related to this matter, and during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019 the Company paid out previously accrued settlement amounts with no admission of liability, bringing this matter to a conclusion.

The Company 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 June 1, 2019, the Company had reached agreements to settle approximately 15,400 of these claims. The Company's accrued expenses for this matter are included within accrued litigation as discussed above.

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 six 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.

The Company is involved in litigation in Indiana relating to certain patent and royalty disputes with Dr. Sasso under agreements originally entered into in 1999 and 2001. On November 28, 2018, a jury in Indiana state court returned a verdict against the Company for approximately $112 million. The Company has strong arguments to appeal the verdict and has filed post-trial motions and appeals with the appropriate appellate courts. The Company has not recognized an expense in connection with this matter because it does not currently believe a loss is probable under U.S. GAAP.

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 March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an 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, and reversed in part. On April 19, 2016, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition to review 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, which are ongoing. The Company has not recognized

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. In October of 2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter, and in January 2019, the settlement amount was deposited into a qualified settlement fund to be distributed following final court approval. In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019, the court approved the settlement, bringing this matter to a conclusion.

The Company 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.

Since the early 2000s, the Company or its predecessors have 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 the Company's predecessor 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.

Following a trial in March 2002, the Court held that conditions in the Penobscot River and Bay may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment and that the Company’s predecessor was liable for the cost of performing a study of the River and Bay. Following a second trial in June 2014, the Court ordered that further engineering study and engineering design work was needed to determine the nature and extent of remediation in the Penobscot River and Bay. The Court also appointed an engineering firm to conduct such studies and issue a report on potential remediation alternatives. In connection with these proceedings, reports have been produced including a variety of cost estimates for a variety of potential remedial options. A third trial to determine the course of remediation to be pursued is scheduled to occur in November of 2019.

Since 2017, the Company has been responding to requests from the Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for information about business practices relating to a neurovascular product developed and first marketed by ev3 and Covidien. The Company has provided information in response to these requests and is cooperating with the inquiry. The Company has not recognized an expense in connection with any ongoing investigation, because any such 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 the ongoing information requests.

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. 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 reviewed this dispute, and on June 9, 2016, issued its opinion with respect to the allocation of income between the parties 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. 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. Oral argument for the Appeal occurred on March 14, 2018. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued their opinion on August 16, 2018, and remanded the case back to the U.S. Tax Court for additional factual findings.

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. The remaining unresolved issue for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 relates to 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. The remaining unresolved issue for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 relates to 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.

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 2012. The statute of limitations for Covidien’s 2013 and 2014 U.S. federal income tax returns lapsed during the first quarter of fiscal years 2018 and 2019, respectively. Covidien's fiscal year 2015 U.S. federal income tax returns are currently being audited by the IRS.

As a result of the acquisition of Covidien, the Company has a guarantee commitment related to certain contingent tax liabilities as a party to the Tax Sharing Agreement that was entered into on June 29, 2007, between Covidien, Tyco International (now Johnson Controls), and Tyco Electronics (now TE Connectivity), associated with the spin-off from Tyco. The Tax Sharing Agreement covers certain income tax liabilities for periods prior to and including the spin-off. Medtronic’s share of the income tax liabilities for these periods is 42 percent, with Johnson Controls and TE Connectivity share being 27 percent, and 31 percent, respectively. If Johnson Controls 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. The most significant amounts at risk under this Tax Sharing Agreement were resolved with the U.S. Tax Court and IRS Appeals resolutions reached in May 2016. However, the Tax Sharing Agreement remains in place with respect to income tax liabilities that are not the subject of such resolution, including certain state and international tax matters that remain open.

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,

As part of the Company’s 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.

In the normal course of business, the Company and/or its affiliates periodically enter into agreements that require one or more of the Company and/or its affiliates to indemnify customers or suppliers for specific risks, such as claims for injury or property damage arising as a result of the Company or its affiliates’ products, the negligence of the Company's personnel, or claims alleging that the Company's products infringe on 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.