Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Contingencies	7. Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, the company is subject to various legal proceedings, investigations and claims, including, for example, environmental matters, employment disputes, disputes on agreements and other commercial disputes. In addition, the company operates in an industry susceptible to significant product liability and patent legal claims. The company accounts for estimated losses with respect to legal proceedings and claims when such losses are probable and reasonably estimable. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, the company accrues the minimum amount of the range. Legal costs associated with these matters are expensed as incurred. At any given time, in the ordinary course of business, the company is involved as either a plaintiff or defendant in a number of patent infringement actions. If a third party’s patent infringement claim were to be determined against the company, the company might be required to make significant royalty or other payments or might be subject to an injunction or other limitation on its ability to manufacture or distribute one or more products. If a patent owned by or licensed to the company is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the company might be required to reduce the value of certain intangible assets on the company’s balance sheet and to record a corresponding charge, which could be significant in amount. Many of the company’s legal proceedings and claims could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Product Liability Matters Hernia Product Claims As of October 1, 2015, approximately 35 federal and 55 state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 90 plaintiffs, as well as one putative class action in the United States, are currently pending against the company with respect to its Composix^® Kugel^® and certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the “Hernia Product Claims”). The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix^® Kugel^® products beginning in December 2005. As of October 1, 2015, all but one of the putative class actions pending against the company were dismissed. The remaining putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys’ fees. In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to the three putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded by the company. Approximately 30 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 30 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. In June 2007, the Composix^® Kugel^® lawsuits and, subsequently, other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. In June 2011, the company announced that it had reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each agreement was subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. There are two trials currently scheduled for the first quarter of 2016. The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Women’s Health Product Claims As of October 1, 2015, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 12,850 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the company’s surgical continence products for women. The company also has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of unfiled or unknown claims. In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and five putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the company, and a limited number of other claims have been filed or asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class actions and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the “Women’s Health Product Claims”. The Women’s Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys’ fees. In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in one Canadian putative class action. These plaintiffs may appeal this decision or may file an alternatives motion with the Ontario Superior Court to redefine the class. With respect to certain Women’s Health Product Claims, the company believes that two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) (“Medtronic”), each a supplier of the company, have an obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product defect liability. As described below, in July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic regarding certain aspects of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. In October 2010, the Women’s Health Product Claims involving solely Avaulta^® products pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the “WV District Court”), the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits involving all women’s surgical continence products that are manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million. On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $2 million. The company has appealed this decision. The company does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are representative of potential outcomes of all Women’s Health Product Claims. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the WV District Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional 300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the “WHP Pre-Trial Orders”) (the timing for which is currently unknown). The WHP Pre-Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-related defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and continuing through the second quarter of 2015. In February 2015, the WV District Court appointed a Special Master to assist with settlement resolution. In June 2015, the WV District Court issued an order staying the requirement to prepare a significant portion of the cases covered by the WHP Pre-Trial Orders, which stay could be modified at the court’s discretion. The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional cost in future periods in defending Women’s Health Product Claims. The WV District Court may also order that the company prepare additional cases for trial, which could result in material additional cost in future periods. As of September 30, 2015, the company has reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 6,470 Women’s Health Product Claims, including approximately: 560 during 2014; 2,880 in respect of the second quarter of 2015; and 3,030 in respect of the third quarter of 2015. The company believes that these Women’s Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs’ law firms, which have not been included in the approximate number of Women’s Health Product Claims set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women’s Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement efforts, the company anticipates that additional trials, including one or more possible consolidated trials, may occur in the future. In July 2015, as part of the agreement noted above, Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women’s Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the company under supply agreements with Medtronic and the company agreed to pay Medtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements. The company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreement does not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic with respect to Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, Medtronic and the company agreed to dismiss without prejudice their previously filed litigation with respect to Medtronic’s obligation to defend and indemnify the company. The approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section does not include approximately 705 generic complaints involving women’s health products where the company cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints, determine whether any of those cases involve the company’s women’s health products. In addition, the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section does not include approximately 1,160 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims. During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with plaintiffs’ law firms, the company has learned, and may in future periods learn, additional information regarding these and other unfiled or unknown claims which could materially impact the company’s estimate of the number of claims against the company. While the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women’s Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously defend the Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Filter Product Claims As of October 1, 2015, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 65 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the company’s vena cava filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the “Filter Product Claims”). In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation (“JPML”) ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for all federal Filter Product Claims (the “IVC Filter MDL”) in the District of Arizona. There are approximately 50 cases that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC Filter MDL. The remaining approximately 15 cases are pending in various state courts across the country. The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted in a judgment for the company. During the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized settlement agreements with respect to more than 30 Filter Product Claims and made payments with respect to such claims within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The case numbers set forth above do not include approximately 130 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. The company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. General In most product liability litigations (like those described above), plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these cases, the company has not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions and, consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The company expects that it will receive and review additional information regarding any remaining unsettled product liability matters. The company believes that some settlements and judgments, as well as some legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers, or, in some circumstances, indemnification obligations to the company from other parties. In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has occurred with respect to certain claims. In addition, other parties may dispute their indemnification obligations to the company, as has occurred with respect to certain claims. When either of these occur, the company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its insurance coverage or indemnification and to enforce its rights, and accordingly, will record expected recoveries with respect to amounts due under these policies or arrangements, when recovery is probable. Amounts recovered under the company’s product liability insurance policies or indemnification arrangements may be less than the stated coverage limits or less than otherwise expected and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers or other parties will pay claims or that coverage or indemnity will be otherwise available. The company’s insurance coverage with respect to the Hernia Product Claims has been exhausted. The company continues to evaluate its available insurance coverage as it relates to Women’s Health Product Claims and Filter Product Claims. Other Legal Matters Since early 2013, the company has received subpoenas or Civil Investigative Demands from a number of State Attorneys General seeking information related to the sales and marketing of certain of the company’s products that are the subject of the Hernia Product Claims and the Women’s Health Product Claims. The company is cooperating with these requests. Since it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, the company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. In December 2007, a U.S. District Court (the “AZ District Court”) jury in Arizona found that certain of Gore’s ePTFE vascular grafts and stent-grafts infringe the company’s patent number 6,436,135 (the “135 patent”). The jury upheld the validity of the company’s patent and awarded the company $185 million in past damages. The jury also found that Gore willfully infringed the patent. In a second phase of the trial, the AZ District Court ruled that Gore failed to prove that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In March 2009, the AZ District Court doubled the jury award to approximately $371 million for damages through June 2007. The AZ District Court also awarded the company attorneys’ fees of $19 million and prejudgment interest of approximately $20 million. In addition, the AZ District Court denied Gore’s remaining motions, including its motions for a new trial and to set aside the jury’s verdict. In July 2010, the AZ District Court awarded the company approximately $109 million in additional damages for the period from July 2007 through March 2009. The AZ District Court also assessed a royalty rate of between 12.5% and 20%, depending on the product, that is being used to calculate damages for Gore’s infringing sales from April 2009 through the expiration of the patent. Gore appealed this matter to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”), which on February 10, 2012 affirmed the decision of the AZ District Court. Gore filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its appeal. On June 14, 2012, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its February 10, 2012 decision, including the ongoing royalty rates as set by the AZ District Court, with the exception of the issue of willfulness with respect to Gore’s infringement of the 135 patent, which was remanded to the AZ District Court for further consideration. On October 12, 2012, Gore filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting a review of the portion of the decision that the Court of Appeals reaffirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Gore’s petition on January 14, 2013. On January 28, 2013, Gore filed with the AZ District Court a Request for Judicial Notice that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) granted Gore’s previously filed request for a re-examination of the 135 patent. On April 1, 2013, the USPTO issued a First Office Action initially rejecting all of the claims of the 135 patent that are the subject of the re-examination. On July 10, 2013, the USPTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate upholding the patentability of all re-examined claims of the 135 patent. This action terminated the re-examination proceeding and upheld the claims involved in the re-examination. On remand of the action from the Court of Appeals, the AZ District Court heard oral argument on June 5, 2013 on three motions pending before it – Gore’s motion requesting a determination that Gore’s infringement was not willful, Gore’s motion for a new trial, and the company’s motion to execute on the judgment with respect to all amounts other than enhanced damages due to willfulness. On October 16, 2013, the AZ District Court denied Gore’s motion for entry of a judgment holding that Gore’s infringement was not willful and Gore’s motion for a new trial. The AZ District Court granted the company’s motion to execute on the judgment, holding that all aspects of the judgment relating to infringement were “final and non-appealable.” The AZ District Court continued its stay on the execution of the judgment with respect to willfulness and the related enhanced damages. On November 1, 2013, Gore paid to the company $894.3 million in cash, the total amount of the compensatory damages for infringement, including pre- and post-judgment interest, and the royalties accrued through September 30, 2013. Gore expressly reserved its right to appeal from the AZ District Court’s rulings and notified the company that, if successful on appeal, it would seek to recover the amounts paid to the company. On December 5, 2013, Gore filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals on all of the AZ District Court’s rulings, including the order denying Gore’s motion for a new trial. On August 8, 2014, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on Gore’s appeal of the AZ District Court’s rulings. On January 13, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the AZ District Court regarding its determination that the company established standing and that the 135 patent was willfully infringed. On February 12, 2015, Gore filed a petition for rehearing en banc at the Court of Appeals on the issue of willfulness. On April 8, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied Gore’s petition for rehearing en banc on the issue of willfulness. The company filed a motion to execute on the judgment on the issue of willfulness, which was granted by the AZ District Court on April 23, 2015. On May 1, 2015, Gore paid to the company $210.5 million in cash, representing the total amount of the enhanced damages awarded by the AZ District Court due to Gore’s willfulness and an audit adjustment related to the payment of royalties through September 30, 2013. Amounts received from Gore in May 2015 and previously in November 2013 are referred to as the “Gore Proceeds”. On July 7, 2015, Gore filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting a review of the decision that the 135 patent was infringed. On October 5, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Gore’s petition. As of the third quarter of 2013, the company considered both the compensatory damages and the enhanced damages and the royalty awards to be contingent gains. In the fourth quarter of 2013, the company recorded a gain of $894.3 million ($557.4 million after tax) to other (income) expense, net, based on the AZ District Court’s October 2013 rulings and the company’s receipt of the 2013 portion of the Gore Proceeds. In the second quarter of 2015, the company recorded a gain of $210.5 million ($131.7 million after tax) to other (income) expense, net, based on the AZ District Court’s April 2015 ruling and the company’s receipt of the 2015 portion of the Gore Proceeds and an audit adjustment related to the payment of royalties through September 30, 2013. In July 2015, the company received $38.4 million of royalty payments from Gore representing Gore’s calculation of royalties for its infringing sales for the quarter ended June 30, 2015. This royalty payment was recorded to revenue in the third quarter of 2015. Royalty payments of $113.7 million were recorded to revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2015. The company has received cumulative proceeds from Gore of $1,370.3 million. The company has concluded that the chance of Gore establishing its right to recover any portion of the cumulative proceeds is remote. The company cannot give any assurances that royalties for Gore’s future infringing sales will remain at or near historical levels. In an unrelated matter, Gore filed suit in June 2011 in the U.S. District Court in Delaware alleging the company had infringed on several of Gore’s patents. Fact and expert discovery have been completed and in the fourth quarter of 2014, the parties both filed a number of motions, including motions for summary judgment. Oral arguments on the motions occurred on January 30, 2015. In June 2015, the Magistrate Judge of the Delaware District Court issued a preliminary ruling on three of these motions, granting the company’s motion for summary judgment on non-infringement of one of Gore’s patents and denying the company’s motions for summary judgment for patent invalidity due to the patents being indefinite and to exclude expert testimony of Gore’s technical expert. In the third quarter of 2015 the Delaware District Court affirmed the Magistrate’s rulings and the parties are awaiting rulings on the remainder of the motions. Trial on this matter is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2015. The company intends to vigorously defend the allegations asserted by Gore. The company cannot give any assurances that an adverse resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. The company is subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign environmental protection laws governing, among other things, the generation, storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials and emissions or discharges into the ground, air or water. The company is or may become a party to proceedings brought under various federal laws including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and similar state or foreign laws. These proceedings seek to require the owners or operators of contaminated sites, transporters of hazardous materials to the sites and generators of hazardous materials disposed of at the sites to clean up the sites or to reimburse the government for cleanup costs. In most cases, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be liable for remediation costs. In these cases, the government alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the cleanup costs; however, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup costs among the parties more closely reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site contamination. The company’s potential liability varies greatly from site to site. For some sites, the potential liability is de minimis and for others the costs of cleanup have not yet been determined. Accruals for estimated losses from environmental remediation obligations generally are recognized no later than completion of the remedial feasibility study and are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted to their present value. Recoveries of environmental remediation costs from other parties are recorded as assets when their receipt is deemed probable. The company believes that the proceedings and claims described above will likely be resolved over an extended period of time. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, based upon the company’s experience, current information and applicable law, the company does not expect these proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and/or liquidity. However, one or more of the proceedings could be material to the company’s business and/or results of operations. Litigation Reserves The company regularly monitors and evaluates the status of product liability and other legal matters, and may, from time-to-time, engage in settlement and mediation discussions taking into consideration developments in the matters and the risks and uncertainties surrounding litigation. These discussions could result in settlements of one or more of these claims at any time. In the second quarter of 2013, the company recorded a charge, net of estimated recoveries to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $293.0 million ($276.0 million after tax) related to certain of the product liability matters discussed above under the heading “Product Liability Matters”. The company recorded this charge after evaluating these matters based on information then currently available, including but not limited to: the allegations and documentation supporting or refuting such allegations; publicly available information regarding similar medical device mass tort settlements; historical information regarding other product liability settlements involving the company; and the procedural posture and stage of litigation. In the fourth quarter of 2013, based on information then available regarding these and other factors, including but not limited to: the increase in the number of claims; the estimate of Women’s Health Product Claims; the settlement of claims both by the company and by other manufacturers subject to product liability claims with respect to similar products; and settlements subject to negotiation during the quarter, the company recorded an additional charge, net of estimated recoveries, of approximately $108.0 million ($92.0 million after tax). In the second quarter of 2014, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters, net of estimated recoveries to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $259.0 million ($238.0 million after tax). The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained during the quarter, including with respect to the factors noted above. Specifically, the company considered its discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel, the increase in the rate of claims being filed (which led the company to increase its estimate of Women’s Health Product Claims), and the value, number of cases and nature of the inventory of cases with respect to the recent settlements of claims by the company and other manufacturers. In the second quarter of 2015, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters, net of estimated recoveries to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $337.0 million ($325.0 million after tax). The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained during the quarter, including with respect to the factors noted above. Specifically the company considered the agreement and the agreement in principle by the company to settle approximately 2,880 Women’s Health Product Claims, the involvement of the Special Master in settlement resolution, additional settlements by other manufacturers subject to product liability claims with respect to similar products, and the continued rate of claims being filed (which led the company to increase its estimate of Women’s Health Product Claims). In the third quarter of 2015, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $241.0 million ($228.0 million after tax). The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained with respect to the quarter, including with respect to the factors noted above. Specifically, the company considered the agreements and the agreement in principle by the company to settle approximately 3,030 Women’s Health Product Claims, discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel, additional information learned regarding the nature and quantity of unfiled and unknown claims (which led the company to increase its estimate of Women’s Health Product Claims), a reconciliation of claims in connection with settlements, additional settlements by other manufacturers subject to product liability claims with respect to similar products, the rate of claims being filed, and the creation of the IVC Filter MDL. These charges recognized the estimated costs for the product liability matters discussed above, including (with respect to such matters) filed and an estimate of unfiled and unknown claims, and costs to administer the settlements related to such matters. These charges exclude any costs associated with the putative class action lawsuits in the United States. The company cannot give any assurances that the actual costs incurred with respect to these product liability matters will not exceed the related amounts accrued. With respect to product liability claims that are not resolved through settlement, the company intends to vigorously defend against such claims, including through litigation. The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of any of its product liability matters, including filed, unfiled and unknown claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Accruals for product liability and other legal matters amounted to $1,309.6 million, of which $619.8 million was recorded to accrued expenses, and $1,041.5 million, of which $101.7 million was recorded to accrued expenses, at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. The company has made total payments of $297.4 million to qualified settlement funds (“QSFs”), subject to certain settlement conditions, for certain product liability matters, of which $47.9 million were made to QSFs during the nine months ended September 30, 2015. Payments to QSFs are recorded as a component of restricted cash. Total payments of $235.9 million from these QSFs have been made to qualified claimants, of which $33.9 million were made during the nine months ended September 30, 2015. In addition, other payments of $58.3 million have been made to qualified claimants, of which $17.6 million were made during the nine months ended September 30, 2015. The company recorded expected recoveries related to product liability matters amounting to $150.2 million, of which $145.6 million was recorded to other assets, and $379.3 million, of which $358.9 million was recorded to other assets, at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. A substantial amount of these recoveries at December 31, 2014 were the subject of a dispute with Medtronic, which had contested, at least in part, its obligation to defend and indemnify the company. The decrease in expected recoveries is primarily due to the agreement with Medtronic entered into in July 2015 regarding certain aspects of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. The terms of the company’s agreement with Medtronic are substantially consistent with the assumptions underlying, and the manner in which, the company has recorded expected recoveries related to the indemnification obligation. The expected recoveries at September 30, 2015 related to the indemnification obligation are not in dispute with respect to claims that Medtronic settles pursuant to the agreement. As described above, the agreement does not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic with respect to Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any, and the company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible losses or range of losses, if any, arising from certain existing product liability matters and other legal matters. Under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”. With respect to putative class action lawsuits in the United States relating to product liability matters, the company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) the company has not received and reviewed complete information regarding all or certain of the plaintiffs and their medical conditions; and/or (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. In addition, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class. In addition, with respect to the Civil Investigative Demands from a number of State Attorneys General, the company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; and/or (ii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved.

7. Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, the company is subject to various legal proceedings, investigations and claims, including, for example, environmental matters, employment disputes, disputes on agreements and other commercial disputes. In addition, the company operates in an industry susceptible to significant product liability and patent legal claims. The company accounts for estimated losses with respect to legal proceedings and claims when such losses are probable and reasonably estimable. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, the company accrues the minimum amount of the range. Legal costs associated with these matters are expensed as incurred. At any given time, in the ordinary course of business, the company is involved as either a plaintiff or defendant in a number of patent infringement actions. If a third party’s patent infringement claim were to be determined against the company, the company might be required to make significant royalty or other payments or might be subject to an injunction or other limitation on its ability to manufacture or distribute one or more products. If a patent owned by or licensed to the company is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the company might be required to reduce the value of certain intangible assets on the company’s balance sheet and to record a corresponding charge, which could be significant in amount. Many of the company’s legal proceedings and claims could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Product Liability Matters

Hernia Product Claims

As of October 1, 2015, approximately 35 federal and 55 state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 90 plaintiffs, as well as one putative class action in the United States, are currently pending against the company with respect to its Composix^® Kugel^® and certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the “Hernia Product Claims”). The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix^® Kugel^® products beginning in December 2005. As of October 1, 2015, all but one of the putative class actions pending against the company were dismissed. The remaining putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys’ fees. In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to the three putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded by the company. Approximately 30 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 30 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products.

In June 2007, the Composix^® Kugel^® lawsuits and, subsequently, other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

In June 2011, the company announced that it had reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each agreement was subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. There are two trials currently scheduled for the first quarter of 2016. The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Women’s Health Product Claims

As of October 1, 2015, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 12,850 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the company’s surgical continence products for women. The company also has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of unfiled or unknown claims. In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and five putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the company, and a limited number of other claims have been filed or asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class actions and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the “Women’s Health Product Claims”. The Women’s Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys’ fees. In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in one Canadian putative class action. These plaintiffs may appeal this decision or may file an alternatives motion with the Ontario Superior Court to redefine the class. With respect to certain Women’s Health Product Claims, the company believes that two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) (“Medtronic”), each a supplier of the company, have an obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product defect liability. As described below, in July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic regarding certain aspects of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation.

In October 2010, the Women’s Health Product Claims involving solely Avaulta^® products pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the “WV District Court”), the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits involving all women’s surgical continence products that are manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million. On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $2 million. The company has appealed this decision. The company does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are representative of potential outcomes of all Women’s Health Product Claims. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the WV District Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional 300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the “WHP Pre-Trial Orders”) (the timing for which is currently unknown). The WHP Pre-Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-related defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and continuing through the second quarter of 2015. In February 2015, the WV District Court appointed a Special Master to assist with settlement resolution. In June 2015, the WV District Court issued an order staying the requirement to prepare a significant portion of the cases covered by the WHP Pre-Trial Orders, which stay could be modified at the court’s discretion. The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional cost in future periods in defending Women’s Health Product Claims. The WV District Court may also order that the company prepare additional cases for trial, which could result in material additional cost in future periods.

As of September 30, 2015, the company has reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 6,470 Women’s Health Product Claims, including approximately: 560 during 2014; 2,880 in respect of the second quarter of 2015; and 3,030 in respect of the third quarter of 2015. The company believes that these Women’s Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs’ law firms, which have not been included in the approximate number of Women’s Health Product Claims set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women’s Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement efforts, the company anticipates that additional trials, including one or more possible consolidated trials, may occur in the future.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement noted above, Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women’s Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the company under supply agreements with Medtronic and the company agreed to pay Medtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements. The company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreement does not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic with respect to Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, Medtronic and the company agreed to dismiss without prejudice their previously filed litigation with respect to Medtronic’s obligation to defend and indemnify the company.

The approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section does not include approximately 705 generic complaints involving women’s health products where the company cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints, determine whether any of those cases involve the company’s women’s health products. In addition, the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section does not include approximately 1,160 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims. During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with plaintiffs’ law firms, the company has learned, and may in future periods learn, additional information regarding these and other unfiled or unknown claims which could materially impact the company’s estimate of the number of claims against the company. While the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs’ law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women’s Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously defend the Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Filter Product Claims

As of October 1, 2015, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 65 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the company’s vena cava filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the “Filter Product Claims”). In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation (“JPML”) ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for all federal Filter Product Claims (the “IVC Filter MDL”) in the District of Arizona. There are approximately 50 cases that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC Filter MDL. The remaining approximately 15 cases are pending in various state courts across the country. The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted in a judgment for the company. During the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized settlement agreements with respect to more than 30 Filter Product Claims and made payments with respect to such claims within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The case numbers set forth above do not include approximately 130 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. The company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

General

In most product liability litigations (like those described above), plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these cases, the company has not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions and, consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The company expects that it will receive and review additional information regarding any remaining unsettled product liability matters.

The company believes that some settlements and judgments, as well as some legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers, or, in some circumstances, indemnification obligations to the company from other parties. In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has occurred with respect to certain claims. In addition, other parties may dispute their indemnification obligations to the company, as has occurred with respect to certain claims. When either of these occur, the company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its insurance coverage or indemnification and to enforce its rights, and accordingly, will record expected recoveries with respect to amounts due under these policies or arrangements, when recovery is probable. Amounts recovered under the company’s product liability insurance policies or indemnification arrangements may be less than the stated coverage limits or less than otherwise expected and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers or other parties will pay claims or that coverage or indemnity will be otherwise available.

The company’s insurance coverage with respect to the Hernia Product Claims has been exhausted. The company continues to evaluate its available insurance coverage as it relates to Women’s Health Product Claims and Filter Product Claims.

Other Legal Matters

Since early 2013, the company has received subpoenas or Civil Investigative Demands from a number of State Attorneys General seeking information related to the sales and marketing of certain of the company’s products that are the subject of the Hernia Product Claims and the Women’s Health Product Claims. The company is cooperating with these requests. Since it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, the company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

In December 2007, a U.S. District Court (the “AZ District Court”) jury in Arizona found that certain of Gore’s ePTFE vascular grafts and stent-grafts infringe the company’s patent number 6,436,135 (the “135 patent”). The jury upheld the validity of the company’s patent and awarded the company $185 million in past damages. The jury also found that Gore willfully infringed the patent. In a second phase of the trial, the AZ District Court ruled that Gore failed to prove that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In March 2009, the AZ District Court doubled the jury award to approximately $371 million for damages through June 2007. The AZ District Court also awarded the company attorneys’ fees of $19 million and prejudgment interest of approximately $20 million. In addition, the AZ District Court denied Gore’s remaining motions, including its motions for a new trial and to set aside the jury’s verdict. In July 2010, the AZ District Court awarded the company approximately $109 million in additional damages for the period from July 2007 through March 2009. The AZ District Court also assessed a royalty rate of between 12.5% and 20%, depending on the product, that is being used to calculate damages for Gore’s infringing sales from April 2009 through the expiration of the patent.

Gore appealed this matter to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”), which on February 10, 2012 affirmed the decision of the AZ District Court. Gore filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its appeal. On June 14, 2012, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its February 10, 2012 decision, including the ongoing royalty rates as set by the AZ District Court, with the exception of the issue of willfulness with respect to Gore’s infringement of the 135 patent, which was remanded to the AZ District Court for further consideration. On October 12, 2012, Gore filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting a review of the portion of the decision that the Court of Appeals reaffirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Gore’s petition on January 14, 2013.

On January 28, 2013, Gore filed with the AZ District Court a Request for Judicial Notice that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) granted Gore’s previously filed request for a re-examination of the 135 patent. On April 1, 2013, the USPTO issued a First Office Action initially rejecting all of the claims of the 135 patent that are the subject of the re-examination. On July 10, 2013, the USPTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate upholding the patentability of all re-examined claims of the 135 patent. This action terminated the re-examination proceeding and upheld the claims involved in the re-examination.

On remand of the action from the Court of Appeals, the AZ District Court heard oral argument on June 5, 2013 on three motions pending before it – Gore’s motion requesting a determination that Gore’s infringement was not willful, Gore’s motion for a new trial, and the company’s motion to execute on the judgment with respect to all amounts other than enhanced damages due to willfulness. On October 16, 2013, the AZ District Court denied Gore’s motion for entry of a judgment holding that Gore’s infringement was not willful and Gore’s motion for a new trial. The AZ District Court granted the company’s motion to execute on the judgment, holding that all aspects of the judgment relating to infringement were “final and non-appealable.” The AZ District Court continued its stay on the execution of the judgment with respect to willfulness and the related enhanced damages.

On November 1, 2013, Gore paid to the company $894.3 million in cash, the total amount of the compensatory damages for infringement, including pre- and post-judgment interest, and the royalties accrued through September 30, 2013. Gore expressly reserved its right to appeal from the AZ District Court’s rulings and notified the company that, if successful on appeal, it would seek to recover the amounts paid to the company. On December 5, 2013, Gore filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals on all of the AZ District Court’s rulings, including the order denying Gore’s motion for a new trial. On August 8, 2014, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on Gore’s appeal of the AZ District Court’s rulings. On January 13, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the AZ District Court regarding its determination that the company established standing and that the 135 patent was willfully infringed. On February 12, 2015, Gore filed a petition for rehearing en banc at the Court of Appeals on the issue of willfulness. On April 8, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied Gore’s petition for rehearing en banc on the issue of willfulness. The company filed a motion to execute on the judgment on the issue of willfulness, which was granted by the AZ District Court on April 23, 2015. On May 1, 2015, Gore paid to the company $210.5 million in cash, representing the total amount of the enhanced damages awarded by the AZ District Court due to Gore’s willfulness and an audit adjustment related to the payment of royalties through September 30, 2013. Amounts received from Gore in May 2015 and previously in November 2013 are referred to as the “Gore Proceeds”. On July 7, 2015, Gore filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting a review of the decision that the 135 patent was infringed. On October 5, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Gore’s petition.

As of the third quarter of 2013, the company considered both the compensatory damages and the enhanced damages and the royalty awards to be contingent gains. In the fourth quarter of 2013, the company recorded a gain of $894.3 million ($557.4 million after tax) to other (income) expense, net, based on the AZ District Court’s October 2013 rulings and the company’s receipt of the 2013 portion of the Gore Proceeds. In the second quarter of 2015, the company recorded a gain of $210.5 million ($131.7 million after tax) to other (income) expense, net, based on the AZ District Court’s April 2015 ruling and the company’s receipt of the 2015 portion of the Gore Proceeds and an audit adjustment related to the payment of royalties through September 30, 2013. In July 2015, the company received $38.4 million of royalty payments from Gore representing Gore’s calculation of royalties for its infringing sales for the quarter ended June 30, 2015. This royalty payment was recorded to revenue in the third quarter of 2015. Royalty payments of $113.7 million were recorded to revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2015. The company has received cumulative proceeds from Gore of $1,370.3 million. The company has concluded that the chance of Gore establishing its right to recover any portion of the cumulative proceeds is remote.

The company cannot give any assurances that royalties for Gore’s future infringing sales will remain at or near historical levels.

In an unrelated matter, Gore filed suit in June 2011 in the U.S. District Court in Delaware alleging the company had infringed on several of Gore’s patents. Fact and expert discovery have been completed and in the fourth quarter of 2014, the parties both filed a number of motions, including motions for summary judgment. Oral arguments on the motions occurred on January 30, 2015. In June 2015, the Magistrate Judge of the Delaware District Court issued a preliminary ruling on three of these motions, granting the company’s motion for summary judgment on non-infringement of one of Gore’s patents and denying the company’s motions for summary judgment for patent invalidity due to the patents being indefinite and to exclude expert testimony of Gore’s technical expert. In the third quarter of 2015 the Delaware District Court affirmed the Magistrate’s rulings and the parties are awaiting rulings on the remainder of the motions. Trial on this matter is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2015. The company intends to vigorously defend the allegations asserted by Gore. The company cannot give any assurances that an adverse resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

The company is subject to numerous federal, state, local and foreign environmental protection laws governing, among other things, the generation, storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials and emissions or discharges into the ground, air or water. The company is or may become a party to proceedings brought under various federal laws including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and similar state or foreign laws. These proceedings seek to require the owners or operators of contaminated sites, transporters of hazardous materials to the sites and generators of hazardous materials disposed of at the sites to clean up the sites or to reimburse the government for cleanup costs. In most cases, there are other potentially responsible parties that may be liable for remediation costs. In these cases, the government alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the cleanup costs; however, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup costs among the parties more closely reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site contamination. The company’s potential liability varies greatly from site to site. For some sites, the potential liability is de minimis and for others the costs of cleanup have not yet been determined. Accruals for estimated losses from environmental remediation obligations generally are recognized no later than completion of the remedial feasibility study and are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Costs of future expenditures for environmental remediation obligations are not discounted to their present value. Recoveries of environmental remediation costs from other parties are recorded as assets when their receipt is deemed probable. The company believes that the proceedings and claims described above will likely be resolved over an extended period of time. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings, based upon the company’s experience, current information and applicable law, the company does not expect these proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and/or liquidity. However, one or more of the proceedings could be material to the company’s business and/or results of operations.

Litigation Reserves

The company regularly monitors and evaluates the status of product liability and other legal matters, and may, from time-to-time, engage in settlement and mediation discussions taking into consideration developments in the matters and the risks and uncertainties surrounding litigation. These discussions could result in settlements of one or more of these claims at any time.

In the second quarter of 2013, the company recorded a charge, net of estimated recoveries to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $293.0 million ($276.0 million after tax) related to certain of the product liability matters discussed above under the heading “Product Liability Matters”. The company recorded this charge after evaluating these matters based on information then currently available, including but not limited to: the allegations and documentation supporting or refuting such allegations; publicly available information regarding similar medical device mass tort settlements; historical information regarding other product liability settlements involving the company; and the procedural posture and stage of litigation. In the fourth quarter of 2013, based on information then available regarding these and other factors, including but not limited to: the increase in the number of claims; the estimate of Women’s Health Product Claims; the settlement of claims both by the company and by other manufacturers subject to product liability claims with respect to similar products; and settlements subject to negotiation during the quarter, the company recorded an additional charge, net of estimated recoveries, of approximately $108.0 million ($92.0 million after tax).

In the second quarter of 2014, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters, net of estimated recoveries to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $259.0 million ($238.0 million after tax). The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained during the quarter, including with respect to the factors noted above. Specifically, the company considered its discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel, the increase in the rate of claims being filed (which led the company to increase its estimate of Women’s Health Product Claims), and the value, number of cases and nature of the inventory of cases with respect to the recent settlements of claims by the company and other manufacturers.

In the second quarter of 2015, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters, net of estimated recoveries to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $337.0 million ($325.0 million after tax). The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained during the quarter, including with respect to the factors noted above. Specifically the company considered the agreement and the agreement in principle by the company to settle approximately 2,880 Women’s Health Product Claims, the involvement of the Special Master in settlement resolution, additional settlements by other manufacturers subject to product liability claims with respect to similar products, and the continued rate of claims being filed (which led the company to increase its estimate of Women’s Health Product Claims).

In the third quarter of 2015, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $241.0 million ($228.0 million after tax). The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained with respect to the quarter, including with respect to the factors noted above. Specifically, the company considered the agreements and the agreement in principle by the company to settle approximately 3,030 Women’s Health Product Claims, discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel, additional information learned regarding the nature and quantity of unfiled and unknown claims (which led the company to increase its estimate of Women’s Health Product Claims), a reconciliation of claims in connection with settlements, additional settlements by other manufacturers subject to product liability claims with respect to similar products, the rate of claims being filed, and the creation of the IVC Filter MDL.

These charges recognized the estimated costs for the product liability matters discussed above, including (with respect to such matters) filed and an estimate of unfiled and unknown claims, and costs to administer the settlements related to such matters. These charges exclude any costs associated with the putative class action lawsuits in the United States.

The company cannot give any assurances that the actual costs incurred with respect to these product liability matters will not exceed the related amounts accrued. With respect to product liability claims that are not resolved through settlement, the company intends to vigorously defend against such claims, including through litigation. The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of any of its product liability matters, including filed, unfiled and unknown claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Accruals for product liability and other legal matters amounted to $1,309.6 million, of which $619.8 million was recorded to accrued expenses, and $1,041.5 million, of which $101.7 million was recorded to accrued expenses, at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. The company has made total payments of $297.4 million to qualified settlement funds (“QSFs”), subject to certain settlement conditions, for certain product liability matters, of which $47.9 million were made to QSFs during the nine months ended September 30, 2015. Payments to QSFs are recorded as a component of restricted cash. Total payments of $235.9 million from these QSFs have been made to qualified claimants, of which $33.9 million were made during the nine months ended September 30, 2015. In addition, other payments of $58.3 million have been made to qualified claimants, of which $17.6 million were made during the nine months ended September 30, 2015.

The company recorded expected recoveries related to product liability matters amounting to $150.2 million, of which $145.6 million was recorded to other assets, and $379.3 million, of which $358.9 million was recorded to other assets, at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. A substantial amount of these recoveries at December 31, 2014 were the subject of a dispute with Medtronic, which had contested, at least in part, its obligation to defend and indemnify the company. The decrease in expected recoveries is primarily due to the agreement with Medtronic entered into in July 2015 regarding certain aspects of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. The terms of the company’s agreement with Medtronic are substantially consistent with the assumptions underlying, and the manner in which, the company has recorded expected recoveries related to the indemnification obligation. The expected recoveries at September 30, 2015 related to the indemnification obligation are not in dispute with respect to claims that Medtronic settles pursuant to the agreement. As described above, the agreement does not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic with respect to Women’s Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any, and the company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms.

The company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible losses or range of losses, if any, arising from certain existing product liability matters and other legal matters. Under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”. With respect to putative class action lawsuits in the United States relating to product liability matters, the company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) the company has not received and reviewed complete information regarding all or certain of the plaintiffs and their medical conditions; and/or (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. In addition, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class. In addition, with respect to the Civil Investigative Demands from a number of State Attorneys General, the company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) all or certain of the proceedings are in early stages; and/or (ii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved.