Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies. During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable legal rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims, and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation, and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity. We record losses for claims in excess of the limits of purchased insurance in earnings at the time and to the extent they are probable and estimable. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for general product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range. Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $596 million as of March 31, 2014 and $607 million as of December 31, 2013, and includes estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The decrease in our legal accrual was primarily due to a net $7 million credit recorded during the first quarter of 2014. During the first quarter of 2013 we recorded $130 million of litigation-related charges. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants. In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our 2013 Annual Report filed on Form 10-K and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated. Patent Litigation On May 16, 2013, Vascular Solutions, Inc. filed suit against us, alleging that our Guidezilla™ guide extension catheter infringes three U.S. patents owned by Vascular Solutions. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On May 28, 2013, Vascular Solutions filed an amended complaint adding an allegation of copyright infringement. On June 10, 2013, Vascular Solutions filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction. On July 11, 2013, we answered the amended complaint and filed a counterclaim against Vascular Solutions, alleging that its Guideliner™ guide extension catheter infringes a U.S. patent owned by us. On December 12, 2013, the District Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction and on December 26, 2013, we filed an appeal. On April 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction. On September 23, 2013, Kardiametrics, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the sale of our FilterWire EZ Embolic Protection System, Sterling balloon catheters, Carotid NexStent and Carotid WallStent products infringe two patents owned by Kardiametrics. On January 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending an arbitration. On February 18, 2014, Kardiametrics dismissed its original complaint and filed a new complaint. On March 14, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the new case or, in the alternative, to stay the new case pending an arbitration. On February 18, 2014, Atlas IP, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the sale of our LATITUDE® Patient Management System and implantable devices that communicate with the LATITUDE® device infringe a patent owned by Atlas. Product Liability Litigation Fewer than ten individual lawsuits remain pending in various state and federal jurisdictions against Guidant Corporation (Guidant) alleging personal injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product communications. Further, we are aware of approximately 30 Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of these suits are pending in Canada and were filed as class actions, four of which are stayed pending the outcome of two lead class actions. On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. In each case, these matters generally seek monetary damages from us. The parties in the defibrillator class action have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately $3 million. The presiding judge verbally approved the settlement at a hearing on March 24, 2014. As of May 7, 2014, there were over 20,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending against us. The cases are pending in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also over ten cases in Canada, inclusive of three putative class actions. Additionally, as of May 7, 2014, there were three claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 1,700 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In addition, in October 2012, the Attorney General for the State of California informed us that their office and certain other state attorneys general offices intended to initiate a civil investigation into our sale of transvaginal surgical mesh products. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices. We have responded to those requests. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. We intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us; however, the final resolution is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters On May 5, 2014, we were served with a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. The subpoena seeks information relating to the launch of the Cognis and Teligen line of devices in 2008, the performance of those devices from 2007 to 2009, and the operation of the Physician Guided Learning Program. We are cooperating with this request. Other Proceedings On October 5, 2007, Dr. Tassilo Bonzel filed a complaint against Pfizer, Inc. and our Schneider subsidiaries and us in the District Court in Kassel, Germany alleging that a 1995 license agreement related to a catheter patent is invalid under German law and seeking monetary damages. In June 2009, the District Court dismissed all but one of Dr. Bonzel's claims and in October 2009, he added new claims. We opposed the addition of the new claims. The District Court ordered Dr. Bonzel to select the claims he would pursue and in January 2011, he made that selection. A hearing was held on March 28, 2014. On April 24, 2014, Dr. Qingsheng Zhu and Dr. Julio Spinelli, acting jointly on behalf of the stockholder representative committee of Action Medical, Inc. (Action Medical), filed a lawsuit against us and our subsidiary, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. (CPI), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The stockholder representatives allege that we and CPI breached a contractual duty to pursue development and commercialization of certain patented heart pacing methods and devices and to return certain patents. Refer to Note I - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2013 On February 1, 2008, Wyeth Corporation (Wyeth) and Cordis Corporation filed an amended complaint for patent infringement against Abbott Laboratories, adding us and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. as additional defendants to the complaint. The suit alleged that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott, infringes three U.S. patents owned by Wyeth and licensed to Cordis. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Wyeth and Cordis subsequently withdrew their infringement claim as to one of the patents, and the District Court found the remaining two patents invalid. Wyeth and Cordis filed an appeal and, on June 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. On October 13, 2013, Wyeth’s motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on January 13, 2014. On May 25, 2010, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. In October 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered judgment in favor of us on the pleadings. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on August 28, 2012. On September 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the ruling and remanded the case to the District Court. On March 31, 2014, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. On April 2, 2014, the case was dismissed.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology driven. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and differentiation. Over the years, there has been litigation initiated against us by others, including our competitors, claiming that our current or former product offerings infringe patents owned or licensed by them. Intellectual property litigation is inherently complex and unpredictable. In addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently drive settlement not only for individual cases, but also for a series of pending and potentially related and unrelated cases. Although monetary and injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally not determined until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and can be modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other cases in other geographies.

During recent years, we successfully negotiated closure of several long-standing legal matters and have received favorable legal rulings in several other matters; however, there continues to be outstanding intellectual property litigation. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell certain products and on our operating margins, financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In the normal course of business, product liability, securities and commercial claims are asserted against us. Similar claims may be asserted against us in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We maintain an insurance policy providing limited coverage against securities claims, and we are substantially self-insured with respect to product liability claims and fully self-insured with respect to intellectual property infringement claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions. Product liability claims, securities and commercial litigation, and other legal proceedings in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

In addition, like other companies in the medical device industry, we are subject to extensive regulation by national, state and local government agencies in the United States and other countries in which we operate. From time to time we are the subject of qui tam actions and governmental investigations often involving regulatory, marketing and other business practices. These qui tam actions and governmental investigations could result in the commencement of civil and criminal proceedings, substantial fines, penalties and administrative remedies and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and/or liquidity.

We record losses for claims in excess of the limits of purchased insurance in earnings at the time and to the extent they are probable and estimable. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for general product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range.

Our accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was $596 million as of March 31, 2014 and $607 million as of December 31, 2013, and includes estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. The decrease in our legal accrual was primarily due to a net $7 million credit recorded during the first quarter of 2014. During the first quarter of 2013 we recorded $130 million of litigation-related charges. We continue to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and/or our ability to comply with our debt covenants.

In management's opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings other than those disclosed in our 2013 Annual Report filed on Form 10-K and those specifically identified below, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows. Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding cannot be estimated.

Patent Litigation

On May 16, 2013, Vascular Solutions, Inc. filed suit against us, alleging that our Guidezilla™ guide extension catheter infringes three U.S. patents owned by Vascular Solutions. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On May 28, 2013, Vascular Solutions filed an amended complaint adding an allegation of copyright infringement. On June 10, 2013, Vascular Solutions filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction. On July 11, 2013, we answered the amended complaint and filed a counterclaim against Vascular Solutions, alleging that its Guideliner™ guide extension catheter infringes a U.S. patent owned by us. On December 12, 2013, the District Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction and on December 26, 2013, we filed an appeal. On April 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction.

On September 23, 2013, Kardiametrics, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the sale of our FilterWire EZ Embolic Protection System, Sterling balloon catheters, Carotid NexStent and Carotid WallStent products infringe two patents owned by Kardiametrics. On January 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to stay the case pending an arbitration. On February 18, 2014, Kardiametrics dismissed its original complaint and filed a new complaint. On March 14, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the new case or, in the alternative, to stay the new case pending an arbitration.

On February 18, 2014, Atlas IP, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the sale of our LATITUDE® Patient Management System and implantable devices that communicate with the LATITUDE® device infringe a patent owned by Atlas.

Product Liability Litigation

Fewer than ten individual lawsuits remain pending in various state and federal jurisdictions against Guidant Corporation (Guidant) alleging personal injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product communications. Further, we are aware of approximately 30 Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of these suits are pending in Canada and were filed as class actions, four of which are stayed pending the outcome of two lead class actions. On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative claims. In each case, these matters generally seek monetary damages from us. The parties in the defibrillator class action have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately $3 million. The presiding judge verbally approved the settlement at a hearing on March 24, 2014.

As of May 7, 2014, there were over 20,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending against us. The cases are pending in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also over ten cases in Canada, inclusive of three putative class actions. Additionally, as of May 7, 2014, there were three claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 1,700 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In addition, in October 2012, the Attorney General for the State of California informed us that their office and certain other state attorneys general offices intended to initiate a civil investigation into our sale of transvaginal surgical mesh products. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices. We have responded to those requests. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. We intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us; however, the final resolution is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters

On May 5, 2014, we were served with a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. The subpoena seeks information relating to the launch of the Cognis and Teligen line of devices in 2008, the performance of those devices from 2007 to 2009, and the operation of the Physician Guided Learning Program. We are cooperating with this request.

Other Proceedings

On October 5, 2007, Dr. Tassilo Bonzel filed a complaint against Pfizer, Inc. and our Schneider subsidiaries and us in the District Court in Kassel, Germany alleging that a 1995 license agreement related to a catheter patent is invalid under German law and seeking monetary damages. In June 2009, the District Court dismissed all but one of Dr. Bonzel's claims and in October 2009, he added new claims. We opposed the addition of the new claims. The District Court ordered Dr. Bonzel to select the claims he would pursue and in January 2011, he made that selection. A hearing was held on March 28, 2014.

On April 24, 2014, Dr. Qingsheng Zhu and Dr. Julio Spinelli, acting jointly on behalf of the stockholder representative committee of Action Medical, Inc. (Action Medical), filed a lawsuit against us and our subsidiary, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. (CPI), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The stockholder representatives allege that we and CPI breached a contractual duty to pursue development and commercialization of certain patented heart pacing methods and devices and to return certain patents.

Refer to Note I - Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation.

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2013

On February 1, 2008, Wyeth Corporation (Wyeth) and Cordis Corporation filed an amended complaint for patent infringement against Abbott Laboratories, adding us and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. as additional defendants to the complaint. The suit alleged that the PROMUS® coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott, infringes three U.S. patents owned by Wyeth and licensed to Cordis. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Wyeth and Cordis subsequently withdrew their infringement claim as to one of the patents, and the District Court found the remaining two patents invalid. Wyeth and Cordis filed an appeal and, on June 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in favor of Boston Scientific. On October 13, 2013, Wyeth’s motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied. The deadline for further appeals lapsed on January 13, 2014.

On May 25, 2010, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. and us alleging breach of contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. In October 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered judgment in favor of us on the pleadings. Dr. Jang filed an appeal on August 28, 2012. On September 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the ruling and remanded the case to the District Court. On March 31, 2014, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. On April 2, 2014, the case was dismissed.