Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jan. 23, 2015
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. Medtronic Legal Proceedings 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 February 23, 2015, 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. Other Matters The Company 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 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. In February 2015, the Company settled and paid (from an existing accrual) this matter for $3 million and certain legal fees. 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. Litigation Related to the Transactions 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, Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic board 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 of 2014 the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December of 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 Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion. In connection with the then-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 named as defendants certain members of Medtronic’s board of directors at the time and certain of Medtronic’s officers, and also named Medtronic as a nominal defendant. The Houston and Clark complaints asserted 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 then-potential acquisition of Covidien. In October of 2014 the Houston and Clark matters were consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Company from the payment of the excise tax reimbursements. On December 16, 2014, the Court heard the preliminary injunction motion and on December 22, 2014, the Court denied the preliminary injunction motion. On January 6, 2015, the Company consented to plaintiffs’ request to voluntarily dismiss the matter without prejudice. Putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by purported shareholders of Covidien under the captions Taxman v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-12949, Lipovich v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-13308 and Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-13490. On October 20, 2014, the plaintiff in the Rosenfeld action and another purported shareholder of Covidien filed a motion seeking to consolidate the Taxman, Lipovich and Rosenfeld actions, and on November 14, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted that motion consolidating the actions (the “Consolidated Action”). On December 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Covidien agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the Transactions, which are contained in Covidien’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 23, 2014. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought by Covidien shareholders challenging any aspect of the Transactions, the negotiation or consideration of the Transactions, the Transaction Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, except that the released claims will not include the claims currently asserted in In re Medtronic, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 27-CV-14-11452, in the District Court, Fourth Judicial District of Hennepin Count, Minnesota or the claims currently asserted in In re Medtronic, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 14-cv-3540, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties shall negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with the actions. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.

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.

Medtronic Legal Proceedings

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 February 23, 2015, 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.

Other Matters

The Company 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 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. In February 2015, the Company settled and paid (from an existing accrual) this matter for $3 million and certain legal fees.

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.

Litigation Related to the Transactions

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, Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic board 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 of 2014 the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December of 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 Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion.

In connection with the then-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 named as defendants certain members of Medtronic’s board of directors at the time and certain of Medtronic’s officers, and also named Medtronic as a nominal defendant. The Houston and Clark complaints asserted 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 then-potential acquisition of Covidien. In October of 2014 the Houston and Clark matters were consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Company from the payment of the excise tax reimbursements. On December 16, 2014, the Court heard the preliminary injunction motion and on December 22, 2014, the Court denied the preliminary injunction motion. On January 6, 2015, the Company consented to plaintiffs’ request to voluntarily dismiss the matter without prejudice.

Putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by purported shareholders of Covidien under the captions Taxman v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-12949, Lipovich v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-13308 and Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-13490. On October 20, 2014, the plaintiff in the Rosenfeld action and another purported shareholder of Covidien filed a motion seeking to consolidate the Taxman, Lipovich and Rosenfeld actions, and on November 14, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted that motion consolidating the actions (the “Consolidated Action”). On December 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Covidien agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the Transactions, which are contained in Covidien’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 23, 2014. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought by Covidien shareholders challenging any aspect of the Transactions, the negotiation or consideration of the Transactions, the Transaction Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, except that the released claims will not include the claims currently asserted in In re Medtronic, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 27-CV-14-11452, in the District Court, Fourth Judicial District of Hennepin Count, Minnesota or the claims currently asserted in In re Medtronic, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 14-cv-3540, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties shall negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with the actions. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.