Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies General In the ordinary course of its business, the company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits, primarily product liability actions in which various plaintiffs seek damages for injuries allegedly caused by defective products. All of the product liability lawsuits that the company faces in the United States have been referred to the company's captive insurance company and/or excess insurance carriers while all non-U.S. lawsuits have been referred to the company's commercial insurance carriers. All such lawsuits are generally contested vigorously. The coverage territory of the company's insurance is worldwide with the exception of those countries with respect to which, at the time the product is sold for use or at the time a claim is made, the U.S. government has suspended or prohibited diplomatic or trade relations. The amount recorded for identified contingent liabilities is based on estimates. Amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. Actual costs to be incurred in future periods may vary from the estimates, given the inherent uncertainties in evaluating certain exposures. As a medical device manufacturer, the company is subject to extensive government regulation, including numerous laws directed at preventing fraud and abuse and laws regulating reimbursement under various government programs. The marketing, invoicing, documenting, developing, testing, manufacturing, labeling, promoting, distributing and other practices of health care suppliers and medical device manufacturers are all subject to government scrutiny. Most of the company's facilities are subject to inspection at any time by the FDA or similar medical device regulatory agencies in other jurisdictions. Violations of law or regulations can result in administrative, civil and criminal penalties and sanctions, which could have a material adverse effect on the company's business. On September 12, 2014, an amended complaint, in a lawsuit originally instituted on August 26, 2013, was filed against Invacare Corporation, former officer and director Gerald B. Blouch, former officer and director A. Malachi Mixon III and the company's senior Vice President, Human Resources, Patricia Stumpp, as well as outside directors Dale C. LaPorte and Michael F. Delaney and former outside director Charles S. Robb, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in the administration and maintenance of the company stock fund in the company’s Retirement Savings Plan (401(k) Plan). The lawsuit seeks class certification and unspecified damages and attorneys' fees for participants in the company's stock fund of the 401(k) Plan between July 22, 2010 and the present. On August 28, 2015, the Court limited plaintiff’s claim to the time period between July 22, 2010 and December 8, 2011. This lawsuit has been referred to the company's insurance carriers. Following mediation, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement which was preliminarily approved by the Court on August 1, 2016, and which is subject to final court approval. The settlement amount is expected to be paid by the company's insurance carriers. Medical Device Regulatory Matters The FDA in the United States and comparable medical device regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions regulate virtually all aspects of the marketing, invoicing, documenting, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, promotion, distribution and other practices regarding medical devices. The company and its products are subject to the laws and regulations of the FDA and other regulatory bodies in the various jurisdictions where the company's products are manufactured or sold. The company's failure to comply with the regulatory requirements of the FDA and other applicable medical device regulatory requirements can subject the company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions or enforcement actions. These sanctions include injunctions, consent decrees, warning letters, civil penalties, criminal penalties, product seizure or detention, product recalls and total or partial suspension of production. In December 2012, the company reached agreement with the FDA on the terms of a consent decree of injunction with respect to the company's Corporate facility and its Taylor Street wheelchair manufacturing facility in Elyria, Ohio. A complaint and consent decree were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and on December 21, 2012, the Court approved the consent decree and it became effective. The consent decree limits the company's manufacture and distribution of power and manual wheelchairs, wheelchair components and wheelchair sub-assemblies at or from its Taylor Street manufacturing facility. The decree also initially limited design activities related to wheelchairs and power beds that take place at the impacted Elyria, Ohio facilities. The company is entitled to continue to produce from the Taylor Street manufacturing facility certain medically necessary wheelchairs provided that documentation and record-keeping requirements are followed, as well as ongoing replacement, service and repair of products already in use, under terms delineated in the consent decree. Under the terms of the consent decree, in order to resume full operations at the impacted facilities, the company must successfully complete third-party expert certification audits at the impacted Elyria facilities, which are comprised of three distinct reports that must be submitted to, and accepted by, the FDA. During 2013, the company completed the first two of the third-party expert certification audits, and the FDA found the results of both to be acceptable. In these reports, the third-party expert certified that the company's equipment and process validation procedures and its design control systems are compliant with the FDA's QSR. As a result of the FDA's acceptance of the first certification report on May 13, 2013, the Taylor Street facility was able to resume supplying parts and components for the further manufacturing of medical devices at other company facilities. The company's receipt of the FDA's acceptance of the second certification report on July 15, 2013, resulted in the company being able to resume design activities at the impacted facilities related to power wheelchairs and power beds. In February, 2016, the independent expert auditor issued its certification report for the third phase of the consent decree indicating substantial compliance with the FDA's QSR and the report was submitted to the FDA. Similar to the first and second certification processes, the FDA has responded to this report with clarifying questions to which the company and the independent expert have responded. In December 2015, the FDA issued Form 483 observations following a 2015 inspection of approximately 5 months at the Corporate and Taylor Street facilities in Elyria, Ohio which included a review of the company’s compliance with the terms of the consent decree and the matters covered by the first and second expert certification reports previously accepted in 2013 (the “December 2015 Form 483”). The company has filed its responses to this Form 483 and continues to work on addressing the FDA’s observations. On June 7, 2016, the company received a letter from the FDA in follow up to the December 2015 Form 483 and the company’s subsequent responses. To satisfy FDA’s design control requirements, the FDA letter outlined additional steps the company must take. In particular, the FDA clarified its requirement for the company to complete the remediation of certain design history files (DHFs) referenced in the December 2015 Form 483 and in the consent decree. Before the company can design any new Taylor Street wheelchair devices, the specified DHFs must be completed, then recertified by the company’s third-party expert, whose updated report must be accepted by the FDA. The FDA also clarified that its acceptance of the expert’s updated report on these DHFs is a prerequisite to proceeding further with the third certification process. Under the terms of the consent decree, the company must submit its own written report to the FDA regarding its compliance status together with its written responses to any observations in the independent expert's certification report. Both the independent expert's third certification report, submitted in February 2016, as well as the company's own report must be accepted by the FDA before the agency reinspects the impacted Elyria facilities. If the FDA is satisfied with the company's compliance, the FDA will provide written notification that the company is permitted to resume full operations at the impacted facilities. The company cannot predict the acceptance of these reports by the FDA, the timing of the inspection, nor any remaining work that may be needed to meet the FDA's requirements to resume full operations at the impacted facilities. The FDA has the authority to inspect any FDA registered facility at any time. After resumption of full operations, the company must undergo five years of audits by a third-party expert auditor to determine whether the facilities are in continuous compliance with FDA's QSR and the consent decree. The auditor will inspect the Corporate and Taylor Street facilities’ activities every six months during the first year following the resumption of full operations and then every 12 months for the next four years thereafter. As described above, because the limitations on production are not expected to be permanent in nature, and partial production is allowed, the company does not anticipate any major repair, replacement or scrapping of its fixed assets at the Taylor Street manufacturing facility. Based on the company's expectations at the time of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with respect to the utilization of such raw material and with respect to expected future cash flows from production at the Taylor Street manufacturing facility, the company concluded that there is no impairment in the value of the fixed assets related to the Taylor Street manufacturing facility at September 30, 2016. The majority of the production from the Taylor Street facility is "made to order" custom wheelchairs for customers and, as a result, there was not a significant amount of finished goods inventory on hand at September 30, 2016, and the inventory is expected to be fully utilized. Accordingly, the company concluded that there was not an impairment of the work in process and finished goods at the Taylor Street facility at September 30, 2016. Further, based on its analysis of the raw material inventory at the Taylor Street facility and the company's expectations at the time of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with respect to the time frame for FDA's acceptance of the third-party expert certification audit and FDA inspection, the company concluded that the value of the inventory was not excessive nor impaired at September 30, 2016. However, if the company's expectations regarding the impacts of the limitations in the consent decree or the time frame for acceptance of the third-party expert certification audit and FDA inspection were to change, the company may, in future periods, conclude that an impairment exists with respect to its fixed assets or inventory at the Taylor Street facility. Although the North America/HME segment is the segment primarily impacted by the limitations in the FDA consent decree, the Asia/Pacific segment also is negatively affected as a result of the consent decree due to the lower sales volume of microprocessor controllers. During 2012, before the effective date of the consent decree, the company started to experience decreases in net sales in the North America/HME and Asia/Pacific segments. The company believes that those decreases, which continued beyond 2012, were driven in large part by the consent decree which led to delays in new product introductions and to uncertainty regarding the timing of exiting the consent decree, which limited the company's ability to renegotiate and bid on certain customer contracts and otherwise led to a decline in customer orders. The negative effect of the consent decree on customer orders and net sales in these segments has been considerable, and the company expects to continue to experience low levels of net sales in the North America/HME and Asia/Pacific segments at least until it has successfully completed the previously-described FDA re-inspection and has received written notification from the FDA that the company may resume full operations at the Corporate and Taylor Street facilities. Even after the company is permitted to resume full operations at the affected facilities, it is uncertain as to whether, or how quickly, the company will be able to rebuild net sales to more typical historical levels, irrespective of market conditions. Accordingly, when compared to the company's 2010 results, the limitations in the consent decree had, and likely will continue to have, a material adverse effect on the company's business, financial condition and results of operations. Separately, net sales in the North America/HME segment have likely been impacted by uncertainty on the part of the company's customers as they coped with prepayment reviews and post-payment audits by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") and contemplated their participation in the National Competitive Bidding ("NCB") process. In addition, net sales in the North America/HME segment have and may continue to decline as a result of the company's strategic focus away from lower margin, less differentiated products as the company becomes more focused on its clinically complex products. For additional information regarding the consent decree, please see the following sections of company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015: Item 1. Business - Government Regulation and Item 1A. Risk Factors; Item 3. Legal Proceedings; and Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Outlook and - Liquidity and Capital Resources. The company's warranty reserves are subject to adjustment in future periods based on historical analysis of warranty claims and as new developments occur that may change the company's estimates related to specific product recalls. See Current Liabilities in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for the total provision amounts and a reconciliation of the changes in the warranty accrual. In December 2010, the company received a warning letter from the FDA related to quality system processes and procedures at the company's Sanford, Florida facility. In January 2014, the FDA conducted inspections at the company’s manufacturing facility in Suzhou, China and at the company’s electronic components subsidiary in Christchurch, New Zealand, covering quality systems and current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations. In August 2014, the FDA inspected Alber GmbH in Albstadt, Germany. The FDA issued its inspectional observations on Forms 483 to the company after these inspections, and the company submitted its responses to the agency in a timely manner. In October 2014, the FDA conducted an inspection at the Sanford facility and, at the conclusion, issued its Form 483 observations. In December 2015, the FDA issued Form 483 observations following a 2015 inspection of approximately 5 months at the Corporate and Taylor Street facilities in Elyria, Ohio. In July 2016, the FDA inspected Motion Concepts L.P. in Concord, Ontario, Canada and issued its inspectional observations on Form 483. The company has timely filed its responses to these Forms 483 with the FDA and continues to work on addressing the FDA's observations. The results of regulatory claims, proceedings, investigations, or litigation are difficult to predict. An unfavorable resolution or outcome of the FDA warning letter or other FDA enforcement related to the Sanford or other company facilities could materially and adversely affect the company's business, financial condition, and results of operations. Any of the above contingencies could have an adverse impact on the company's financial condition or results of operations.

Contingencies

General

In the ordinary course of its business, the company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits, primarily product liability actions in which various plaintiffs seek damages for injuries allegedly caused by defective products. All of the product liability lawsuits that the company faces in the United States have been referred to the company's captive insurance company and/or excess insurance carriers while all non-U.S. lawsuits have been referred to the company's commercial insurance carriers. All such lawsuits are generally contested vigorously. The coverage territory of the company's insurance is worldwide with the exception of those countries with respect to which, at the time the product is sold for use or at the time a claim is made, the U.S. government has suspended or prohibited diplomatic or trade relations. The amount recorded for identified contingent liabilities is based on estimates. Amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. Actual costs to be incurred in future periods may vary from the estimates, given the inherent uncertainties in evaluating certain exposures.

As a medical device manufacturer, the company is subject to extensive government regulation, including numerous laws directed at preventing fraud and abuse and laws regulating reimbursement under various government programs. The marketing, invoicing, documenting, developing, testing, manufacturing, labeling, promoting, distributing and other practices of health care suppliers and medical device manufacturers are all subject to government scrutiny. Most of the company's facilities are subject to inspection at any time by the FDA or similar medical device regulatory agencies in other jurisdictions. Violations of law or regulations can result in administrative, civil and criminal penalties and sanctions, which could have a material adverse effect on the company's business.

On September 12, 2014, an amended complaint, in a lawsuit originally instituted on August 26, 2013, was filed against Invacare Corporation, former officer and director Gerald B. Blouch, former officer and director A. Malachi Mixon III and the company's senior Vice President, Human Resources, Patricia Stumpp, as well as outside directors Dale C. LaPorte and Michael F. Delaney and former outside director Charles S. Robb, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in the administration and maintenance of the company stock fund in the company’s Retirement Savings Plan (401(k) Plan). The lawsuit seeks class certification and unspecified damages and attorneys' fees for participants in the company's stock fund of the 401(k) Plan between July 22, 2010 and the present. On August 28, 2015, the Court limited plaintiff’s claim to the time period between July 22, 2010 and December 8, 2011. This lawsuit has been referred to the company's insurance carriers. Following mediation, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement which was preliminarily approved by the Court on August 1, 2016, and which is subject to final court approval. The settlement amount is expected to be paid by the company's insurance carriers.

Medical Device Regulatory Matters

The FDA in the United States and comparable medical device regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions regulate virtually all aspects of the marketing, invoicing, documenting, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, promotion, distribution and other practices regarding medical devices. The company and its products are subject to the laws and regulations of the FDA and other regulatory bodies in the various jurisdictions where the company's products are manufactured or sold. The company's failure to comply with the regulatory requirements of the FDA and other applicable medical device regulatory requirements can subject the company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions or enforcement actions. These sanctions include injunctions, consent decrees, warning letters, civil penalties, criminal penalties, product seizure or detention, product recalls and total or partial suspension of production.

In December 2012, the company reached agreement with the FDA on the terms of a consent decree of injunction with respect to the company's Corporate facility and its Taylor Street wheelchair manufacturing facility in Elyria, Ohio. A complaint and consent decree were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and on December 21, 2012, the Court approved the consent decree and it became effective. The consent decree limits the company's manufacture and distribution of power and manual wheelchairs, wheelchair components and wheelchair sub-assemblies at or from its Taylor Street manufacturing facility. The decree also initially limited design activities related to wheelchairs and power beds that take place at the impacted Elyria, Ohio facilities. The company is entitled to continue to produce from the Taylor Street manufacturing facility certain medically necessary wheelchairs provided that documentation and record-keeping requirements are followed, as well as ongoing replacement, service and repair of products already in use, under terms delineated in the consent decree. Under the terms of the consent decree, in order to resume full operations at the impacted facilities, the company must successfully complete third-party expert certification audits at the impacted Elyria facilities, which are comprised of three distinct reports that must be submitted to, and accepted by, the FDA. During 2013, the company completed the first two of the third-party expert certification audits, and the FDA found the results of both to be acceptable. In these reports, the third-party expert certified that the company's equipment and process validation procedures and its design control systems are compliant with the FDA's QSR. As a result of the FDA's acceptance of the first certification report on May 13, 2013, the Taylor Street facility was able to resume supplying parts and components for the further manufacturing of medical devices at other company facilities. The company's receipt of the FDA's acceptance of the second certification report on July 15, 2013, resulted in the company being able to resume design activities at the impacted facilities related to power wheelchairs and power beds. In February, 2016, the independent expert auditor issued its certification report for the third phase of the consent decree indicating substantial compliance with the FDA's QSR and the report was submitted to the FDA. Similar to the first and second certification processes, the FDA has responded to this report with clarifying questions to which the company and the independent expert have responded.

In December 2015, the FDA issued Form 483 observations following a 2015 inspection of approximately 5 months at the Corporate and Taylor Street facilities in Elyria, Ohio which included a review of the company’s compliance with the terms of the consent decree and the matters covered by the first and second expert certification reports previously accepted in 2013 (the “December 2015 Form 483”). The company has filed its responses to this Form 483 and continues to work on addressing the FDA’s observations.

On June 7, 2016, the company received a letter from the FDA in follow up to the December 2015 Form 483 and the company’s subsequent responses. To satisfy FDA’s design control requirements, the FDA letter outlined additional steps the company must take. In particular, the FDA clarified its requirement for the company to complete the remediation of certain design history files (DHFs) referenced in the December 2015 Form 483 and in the consent decree. Before the company can design any new Taylor Street wheelchair devices, the specified DHFs must be completed, then recertified by the company’s third-party expert, whose updated report must be accepted by the FDA. The FDA also clarified that its acceptance of the expert’s updated report on these DHFs is a prerequisite to proceeding further with the third certification process.

Under the terms of the consent decree, the company must submit its own written report to the FDA regarding its compliance status together with its written responses to any observations in the independent expert's certification report. Both the independent expert's third certification report, submitted in February 2016, as well as the company's own report must be accepted by the FDA before the agency reinspects the impacted Elyria facilities. If the FDA is satisfied with the company's compliance, the FDA will provide written notification that the company is permitted to resume full operations at the impacted facilities. The company cannot predict the acceptance of these reports by the FDA, the timing of the inspection, nor any remaining work that may be needed to meet the FDA's requirements to resume full operations at the impacted facilities. The FDA has the authority to inspect any FDA registered facility at any time.

After resumption of full operations, the company must undergo five years of audits by a third-party expert auditor to determine whether the facilities are in continuous compliance with FDA's QSR and the consent decree. The auditor will inspect the Corporate and Taylor Street facilities’ activities every six months during the first year following the resumption of full operations and then every 12 months for the next four years thereafter.

As described above, because the limitations on production are not expected to be permanent in nature, and partial production is allowed, the company does not anticipate any major repair, replacement or scrapping of its fixed assets at the Taylor Street manufacturing facility. Based on the company's expectations at the time of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with respect to the utilization of such raw material and with respect to expected future cash flows from production at the Taylor Street manufacturing facility, the company concluded that there is no impairment in the value of the fixed assets related to the Taylor Street manufacturing facility at September 30, 2016.

The majority of the production from the Taylor Street facility is "made to order" custom wheelchairs for customers and, as a result, there was not a significant amount of finished goods inventory on hand at September 30, 2016, and the inventory is expected to be fully utilized. Accordingly, the company concluded that there was not an impairment of the work in process and finished goods at the Taylor Street facility at September 30, 2016. Further, based on its analysis of the raw material inventory at the Taylor Street facility and the company's expectations at the time of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with respect to the time frame for FDA's acceptance of the third-party expert certification audit and FDA inspection, the company concluded that the value of the inventory was not excessive nor impaired at September 30, 2016. However, if the company's expectations regarding the impacts of the limitations in the consent decree or the time frame for acceptance of the third-party expert certification audit and FDA inspection were to change, the company may, in future periods, conclude that an impairment exists with respect to its fixed assets or inventory at the Taylor Street facility.

Although the North America/HME segment is the segment primarily impacted by the limitations in the FDA consent decree, the Asia/Pacific segment also is negatively affected as a result of the consent decree due to the lower sales volume of microprocessor controllers. During 2012, before the effective date of the consent decree, the company started to experience decreases in net sales in the North America/HME and Asia/Pacific segments. The company believes that those decreases, which continued beyond 2012, were driven in large part by the consent decree which led to delays in new product introductions and to uncertainty regarding the timing of exiting the consent decree, which limited the company's ability to renegotiate and bid on certain customer contracts and otherwise led to a decline in customer orders. The negative effect of the consent decree on customer orders and net sales in these segments has been considerable, and the company expects to continue to experience low levels of net sales in the North America/HME and Asia/Pacific segments at least until it has successfully completed the previously-described FDA re-inspection and has received written notification from the FDA that the company may resume full operations at the Corporate and Taylor Street facilities. Even after the company is permitted to resume full operations at the affected facilities, it is uncertain as to whether, or how quickly, the company will be able to rebuild net sales to more typical historical levels, irrespective of market conditions. Accordingly, when compared to the company's 2010 results, the limitations in the consent decree had, and likely will continue to have, a material adverse effect on the company's business, financial condition and results of operations. Separately, net sales in the North America/HME segment have likely been impacted by uncertainty on the part of the company's customers as they coped with prepayment reviews and post-payment audits by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") and contemplated their participation in the National Competitive Bidding ("NCB") process. In addition, net sales in the North America/HME segment have and may continue to decline as a result of the company's strategic focus away from lower margin, less differentiated products as the company becomes more focused on its clinically complex products.

For additional information regarding the consent decree, please see the following sections of company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015: Item 1. Business - Government Regulation and Item 1A. Risk Factors; Item 3. Legal Proceedings; and Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Outlook and - Liquidity and Capital Resources.

The company's warranty reserves are subject to adjustment in future periods based on historical analysis of warranty claims and as new developments occur that may change the company's estimates related to specific product recalls. See Current Liabilities in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for the total provision amounts and a reconciliation of the changes in the warranty accrual.

In December 2010, the company received a warning letter from the FDA related to quality system processes and procedures at the company's Sanford, Florida facility. In January 2014, the FDA conducted inspections at the company’s manufacturing facility in Suzhou, China and at the company’s electronic components subsidiary in Christchurch, New Zealand, covering quality systems and current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations. In August 2014, the FDA inspected Alber GmbH in Albstadt, Germany. The FDA issued its inspectional observations on Forms 483 to the company after these inspections, and the company submitted its responses to the agency in a timely manner. In October 2014, the FDA conducted an inspection at the Sanford facility and, at the conclusion, issued its Form 483 observations. In December 2015, the FDA issued Form 483 observations following a 2015 inspection of approximately 5 months at the Corporate and Taylor Street facilities in Elyria, Ohio. In July 2016, the FDA inspected Motion Concepts L.P. in Concord, Ontario, Canada and issued its inspectional observations on Form 483. The company has timely filed its responses to these Forms 483 with the FDA and continues to work on addressing the FDA's observations. The results of regulatory claims, proceedings, investigations, or litigation are difficult to predict. An unfavorable resolution or outcome of the FDA warning letter or other FDA enforcement related to the Sanford or other company facilities could materially and adversely affect the company's business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Any of the above contingencies could have an adverse impact on the company's financial condition or results of operations.