Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE I – 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 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 U.S. 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. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for 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 $1.264 billion as of June 30, 2018 and $1.612 billion as of December 31, 2017 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. A portion of our legal accrual is funded and included in our restricted cash and restricted cash equivalent balances of $787 million as of June 30, 2018 and $829 million as of December 31, 2017, as disclosed in Note G – Supplemental Balance Sheet Information. Litigation-related net charges (credits) were immaterial in the second quarter and first six months of 2018. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $205 million in the second quarter of 2017 and $208 million in the first six months of 2017. 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 most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2018 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 November 20, 2017, The Board of Regents, University of Texas System (UT) and TissueGen. Inc., served a lawsuit against us in the Western District of Texas. The complaint against us alleges patent infringement of two U.S. patents owned by UT, relating to “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber Implant” and “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber for Delivery of Therapeutics,” and affects the manufacture, use and sale of our Synergy™ Stent System. On March 12, 2018, the court dismissed the action and transferred it to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. UT has appealed the decision. Product Liability Litigation As of July 24, 2018, approximately 49,500 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the U.S. and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 25 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions and fewer than 25 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 3,100 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. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. As of July 24, 2018, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in the final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 48,000 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 48,000 cases and claims, approximately 27,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing. We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the 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. While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us, that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products. Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters On February 23, 2015, a judge for the Court of Modena (Italy) ordered a trial for Boston Scientific SpA and three of its employees, as well as numerous other defendants charged in criminal proceedings. The charges arise from allegations that the defendants made improper donations to certain health care providers and other employees of the Hospital of Modena in order to induce them to conduct unauthorized clinical trials, as well as related government fraud in relation to the financing of such clinical trials. A trial began on February 24, 2016 and is ongoing. On November 10, 2017, the Court issued a ruling that convicted one Boston Scientific employee but acquitted two others, and levied a fine of €245 thousand against us and imposed joint and several civil damages of €620 thousand on all defendants. We continue to deny these allegations, timely appealed the decision on May 10, 2018 and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously. Other Proceedings On May 16, 2018, Arthur Rosenthal et al., filed a plenary summons against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Limited the High Court of Ireland alleging that payments are due pursuant a transaction agreement regarding Labcoat Limited. Refer to Note H – Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation. Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2017 On October 28, 2016, the Regents of the University of California filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that two U.S. patents (Lesh) owned by the Regents of the University of California are infringed by certain of our catheters and other devices used to treat atrial fibrillation. The Company and the Regents settled the matter, and the case was dismissed on June 20, 2018.

NOTE I – 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 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 U.S. 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.

In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses for 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 $1.264 billion as of June 30, 2018 and $1.612 billion as of December 31, 2017 and includes certain estimated costs of settlement, damages and defense. A portion of our legal accrual is funded and included in our restricted cash and restricted cash equivalent balances of $787 million as of June 30, 2018 and $829 million as of December 31, 2017, as disclosed in Note G – Supplemental Balance Sheet Information. Litigation-related net charges (credits) were immaterial in the second quarter and first six months of 2018. We recorded litigation-related net charges of $205 million in the second quarter of 2017 and $208 million in the first six months of 2017. 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 most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2018 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 November 20, 2017, The Board of Regents, University of Texas System (UT) and TissueGen. Inc., served a lawsuit against us in the Western District of Texas. The complaint against us alleges patent infringement of two U.S. patents owned by UT, relating to “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber Implant” and “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber for Delivery of Therapeutics,” and affects the manufacture, use and sale of our Synergy™ Stent System. On March 12, 2018, the court dismissed the action and transferred it to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. UT has appealed the decision.

Product Liability Litigation

As of July 24, 2018, approximately 49,500 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us. The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the U.S. and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 25 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions and fewer than 25 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 3,100 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. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. As of July 24, 2018, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in the final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 48,000 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 48,000 cases and claims, approximately 27,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing.

We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the 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. While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us, that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products.

Governmental Investigations and Qui Tam Matters

On February 23, 2015, a judge for the Court of Modena (Italy) ordered a trial for Boston Scientific SpA and three of its employees, as well as numerous other defendants charged in criminal proceedings. The charges arise from allegations that the defendants made improper donations to certain health care providers and other employees of the Hospital of Modena in order to induce them to conduct unauthorized clinical trials, as well as related government fraud in relation to the financing of such clinical trials. A trial began on February 24, 2016 and is ongoing. On November 10, 2017, the Court issued a ruling that convicted one Boston Scientific employee but acquitted two others, and levied a fine of €245 thousand against us and imposed joint and several civil damages of €620 thousand on all defendants. We continue to deny these allegations, timely appealed the decision on May 10, 2018 and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously.

Other Proceedings

On May 16, 2018, Arthur Rosenthal et al., filed a plenary summons against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Limited the High Court of Ireland alleging that payments are due pursuant a transaction agreement regarding Labcoat Limited.

Refer to Note H – Income Taxes for information regarding our tax litigation.

Matters Concluded Since December 31, 2017

On October 28, 2016, the Regents of the University of California filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that two U.S. patents (Lesh) owned by the Regents of the University of California are infringed by certain of our catheters and other devices used to treat atrial fibrillation. The Company and the Regents settled the matter, and the case was dismissed on June 20, 2018.