Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Oct. 24, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies The Company is involved in a number of legal actions. 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 claimants seek damages, as well as other relief (including injunctions barring the sale of products that are the subject of the lawsuit), that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company records a liability in the consolidated financial statements for loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can 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 can 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 to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. 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. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the matters discussed, the Company believes it is possible that costs associated with them could have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated earnings, financial position, or cash flows. Sprint Fidelis Product Liability Matters 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 recorded 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 cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. INFUSE Product Liability Litigation As of November 24, 2014, plaintiffs had filed approximately 800 lawsuits against the Company in the U.S. state and federal courts, reflecting approximately 1,300 individual personal injury claims from the INFUSE bone graft product. Certain law firms have advised the Company that they may bring a large number of similar claims against the Company in the future. The Company estimates those law firms represent approximately 3,500 additional unfiled claimants. The Company recorded an expense of $140 million in fiscal year 2014, related to probable and reasonably estimated damages in connection with these matters. Other INFUSE Litigation On June 5, 2014, Humana, Inc. filed a lawsuit for unspecified monetary damages in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging that Medtronic violated federal racketeering (RICO) law and various state laws, by conspiring with physicians to promote unapproved uses of INFUSE. The Company has not recorded 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 cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Shareholder Related Matters On March 12, 2012, Charlotte Kokocinski filed a shareholder derivative action against both the Company and certain of its current and former officers and members of the Board of 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 Court dismissed the case without prejudice. In May 2012, Daniel Himmel and the Saratoga Advantage Trust commenced two other separate shareholder derivative actions in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court against the same defendants, making allegations similar to those in the Kokocinski case. On July 1, 2014, Road Carriers Local 707 Welfare & Pension Funds filed a shareholder derivative action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court against the same defendants making allegations similar to those in the Kokocinski, Himmel, and Saratoga Advantage Trust cases. On July 24, 2014, Anne Shirley Cutler filed a shareholder derivative action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court against certain of the same defendants making allegations similar to those in the Kokocinski, Himmel, and Saratoga Advantage Trust cases as well as allegations that defendants violated purported duties in connection with the Synchromed pain pump system. On September 26, 2014, Richard Hockstein filed an INFUSE related shareholder derivative action against both the Company and certain of its current and former officers and members of the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota making allegations similar to those in the Kokocinski case. West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic 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 regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit names Medtronic, Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic board as defendants, and alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the 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. On July 10, 2014, Richard Taxman filed a putative shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts also seeking to enjoin the potential acquisition, and naming Medtronic, Covidien, and the members of the Covidien board of directors as defendants. On August 26, 2014, William Cobb filed a putative shareholder class action in Suffolk County Superior Court, Massachusetts, asserting claims similar to those asserted in Taxman. The Company has not recorded any expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. In connection with the potential acquisition of Covidien, on September 19, 2014 William A. Houston filed a putative shareholder class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and on October 3, 2014 Marilyn Clark filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota that is nearly identical to the Houston complaint. These actions name as defendants certain current members of Medtronic’s board of directors and certain of Medtronic’s officers, and also name Medtronic as a nominal defendant. The Houston and Clark complaints assert various causes of action under Minnesota law, including that the individual defendants allegedly breached fiduciary duties in providing for excise tax reimbursements to certain individuals who were and/or are directors and executive officers of Medtronic in connection with the potential acquisition of Covidien. The Company has not recorded any expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. Mirowski Medtronic is a licensee to the RE 38,119 patent ('119 Patent) and RE 38,897 patent ('897 Patent) owned by Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC (Mirowski) relating to the treatment of hemodynamic dysfunction. Medtronic and Mirowski dispute the application of the '119 and '897 Patents to certain Medtronic cardiac resynchronization products. On December 17, 2007, Medtronic filed an action in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking a declaration that none of its products infringe any valid claims of either the '119 or '897 Patents. If certain conditions are fulfilled, the '119 and/or '897 Patents are determined to be valid, and the Medtronic products are found to infringe the '119 and/or '897 Patents, Medtronic will be obligated to pay royalties to Mirowski based upon sales of certain cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) products. On March 30, 2011, the trial court entered a judgment of non-infringement in Medtronic's favor. On September 16, 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the trial court's decision for a new trial, based on its holding that the trial court did not properly allocate the burden of proof in the initial proceedings. Medtronic's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was granted, and on January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's decision regarding the burden of proof. On March 11, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment of non-infringement. On August 6, 2014, Mirowski filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court asking for further review of the Federal Circuit's affirmance. On October 14, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mirowski’s petition for certiorari, effectively affirming the trial court’s initial judgment of non-infringement in favor of the Company, and bringing this matter to its conclusion. The Company has not recorded an expense pursuant to U.S. GAAP requirements in connection with this matter because any loss is not probable. Other Matters The Company has received subpoenas or document requests from certain government bodies seeking information regarding sales, marketing, clinical, and other information relating to the INFUSE bone graft product, including civil investigative demands from the Attorneys General in Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Illinois, and Washington. The Company is fully cooperating with these requests. On October 14, 2010, the Company received a subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996, relating to the Company's sales, marketing, and reimbursement support practices regarding certain neurostimulation devices. The Company is fully cooperating with this inquiry. The Company recorded an expense of $3 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, related to probable and reasonably estimated damages in connection with this matter. On November 9, 2010, the French Competition Authority commenced an investigation of the Company, along with a number of other medical device companies, and the companies' trade association, Syndicat National de l'Industrie des Technologies Medicales (SNITEM), to determine whether such companies or SNITEM engaged in any anticompetitive practices in responding to tenders to purchase certain medical devices. In September 2014, the French Competition Authority closed its investigation without taking any further action or proceeding against the Company, bringing this matter to its conclusion. On December 3, 2013, the Company received a subpoena for records from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota, requesting information relating to the Company's compliance with the Trade Agreements Act. The Company is fully cooperating with this inquiry. Except as described above, the Company has not recorded an expense related to losses in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements that require it to indemnify customers or suppliers for specific risks, such as claims for injury or property damage arising out of the Company's products or the negligence of its personnel or claims alleging that its products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property. The Company's maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated, and the Company has not accrued any liabilities within the consolidated financial statements. Historically, the Company has not experienced significant losses on these types of indemnifications.

Contingencies

The Company is involved in a number of legal actions. 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 claimants seek damages, as well as other relief (including injunctions barring the sale of products that are the subject of the lawsuit), that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company records a liability in the consolidated financial statements for loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can 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 can 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 to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. 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. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the matters discussed, the Company believes it is possible that costs associated with them could have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated earnings, financial position, or cash flows.

Sprint Fidelis Product Liability Matters

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 recorded 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 cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

INFUSE Product Liability Litigation

As of November 24, 2014, plaintiffs had filed approximately 800 lawsuits against the Company in the U.S. state and federal courts, reflecting approximately 1,300 individual personal injury claims from the INFUSE bone graft product. Certain law firms have advised the Company that they may bring a large number of similar claims against the Company in the future. The Company estimates those law firms represent approximately 3,500 additional unfiled claimants. The Company recorded an expense of $140 million in fiscal year 2014, related to probable and reasonably estimated damages in connection with these matters.

Other INFUSE Litigation

On June 5, 2014, Humana, Inc. filed a lawsuit for unspecified monetary damages in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging that Medtronic violated federal racketeering (RICO) law and various state laws, by conspiring with physicians to promote unapproved uses of INFUSE. The Company has not recorded 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 cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Shareholder Related Matters

On March 12, 2012, Charlotte Kokocinski filed a shareholder derivative action against both the Company and certain of its current and former officers and members of the Board of 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 Court dismissed the case without prejudice. In May 2012, Daniel Himmel and the Saratoga Advantage Trust commenced two other separate shareholder derivative actions in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court against the same defendants, making allegations similar to those in the Kokocinski case. On July 1, 2014, Road Carriers Local 707 Welfare & Pension Funds filed a shareholder derivative action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court against the same defendants making allegations similar to those in the Kokocinski, Himmel, and Saratoga Advantage Trust cases. On July 24, 2014, Anne Shirley Cutler filed a shareholder derivative action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court against certain of the same defendants making allegations similar to those in the Kokocinski, Himmel, and Saratoga Advantage Trust cases as well as allegations that defendants violated purported duties in connection with the Synchromed pain pump system. On September 26, 2014, Richard Hockstein filed an INFUSE related shareholder derivative action against both the Company and certain of its current and former officers and members of the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota making allegations similar to those in the Kokocinski case.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic 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 regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit names Medtronic, Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic board as defendants, and alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the 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. On July 10, 2014, Richard Taxman filed a putative shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts also seeking to enjoin the potential acquisition, and naming Medtronic, Covidien, and the members of the Covidien board of directors as defendants. On August 26, 2014, William Cobb filed a putative shareholder class action in Suffolk County Superior Court, Massachusetts, asserting claims similar to those asserted in Taxman. The Company has not recorded any expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

In connection with the potential acquisition of Covidien, on September 19, 2014 William A. Houston filed a putative shareholder class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and on October 3, 2014 Marilyn Clark filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota that is nearly identical to the Houston complaint. These actions name as defendants certain current members of Medtronic’s board of directors and certain of Medtronic’s officers, and also name Medtronic as a nominal defendant. The Houston and Clark complaints assert various causes of action under Minnesota law, including that the individual defendants allegedly breached fiduciary duties in providing for excise tax reimbursements to certain individuals who were and/or are directors and executive officers of Medtronic in connection with the potential acquisition of Covidien. The Company has not recorded any expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

Mirowski

Medtronic is a licensee to the RE 38,119 patent ('119 Patent) and RE 38,897 patent ('897 Patent) owned by Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC (Mirowski) relating to the treatment of hemodynamic dysfunction. Medtronic and Mirowski dispute the application of the '119 and '897 Patents to certain Medtronic cardiac resynchronization products. On December 17, 2007, Medtronic filed an action in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking a declaration that none of its products infringe any valid claims of either the '119 or '897 Patents. If certain conditions are fulfilled, the '119 and/or '897 Patents are determined to be valid, and the Medtronic products are found to infringe the '119 and/or '897 Patents, Medtronic will be obligated to pay royalties to Mirowski based upon sales of certain cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) products. On March 30, 2011, the trial court entered a judgment of non-infringement in Medtronic's favor. On September 16, 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the trial court's decision for a new trial, based on its holding that the trial court did not properly allocate the burden of proof in the initial proceedings. Medtronic's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was granted, and on January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's decision regarding the burden of proof. On March 11, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment of non-infringement. On August 6, 2014, Mirowski filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court asking for further review of the Federal Circuit's affirmance. On October 14, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mirowski’s petition for certiorari, effectively affirming the trial court’s initial judgment of non-infringement in favor of the Company, and bringing this matter to its conclusion. The Company has not recorded an expense pursuant to U.S. GAAP requirements in connection with this matter because any loss is not probable.

Other Matters

The Company has received subpoenas or document requests from certain government bodies seeking information regarding sales, marketing, clinical, and other information relating to the INFUSE bone graft product, including civil investigative demands from the Attorneys General in Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Illinois, and Washington. The Company is fully cooperating with these requests.

On October 14, 2010, the Company received a subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996, relating to the Company's sales, marketing, and reimbursement support practices regarding certain neurostimulation devices. The Company is fully cooperating with this inquiry. The Company recorded an expense of $3 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, related to probable and reasonably estimated damages in connection with this matter.

On November 9, 2010, the French Competition Authority commenced an investigation of the Company, along with a number of other medical device companies, and the companies' trade association, Syndicat National de l'Industrie des Technologies Medicales (SNITEM), to determine whether such companies or SNITEM engaged in any anticompetitive practices in responding to tenders to purchase certain medical devices. In September 2014, the French Competition Authority closed its investigation without taking any further action or proceeding against the Company, bringing this matter to its conclusion.

On December 3, 2013, the Company received a subpoena for records from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota, requesting information relating to the Company's compliance with the Trade Agreements Act. The Company is fully cooperating with this inquiry.

Except as described above, the Company has not recorded an expense related to losses in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements that require it to indemnify customers or suppliers for specific risks, such as claims for injury or property damage arising out of the Company's products or the negligence of its personnel or claims alleging that its products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property. The Company's maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated, and the Company has not accrued any liabilities within the consolidated financial statements. Historically, the Company has not experienced significant losses on these types of indemnifications.