Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies	10. Commitments and 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. The company requires limited product warranty accruals as the majority of the company’s products are intended for single use. Certain of the company’s products carry limited warranties that in general do not exceed one year from sale. The company accrues estimated product warranty costs at the time of sale. Product Liability Matters Hernia Product Claims As of December 31, 2016, approximately 25 federal and 65 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. 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. The MDL stopped accepting new cases in the second quarter of 2014 and was terminated in November 2016, at which time the remaining federal lawsuits were remanded to their courts of original jurisdiction for trial. As of December 31, 2016, all but one of the putative class actions pending against the company was dismissed. The remaining putative class action pending against the company has not been certified and 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 50 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 50 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. The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving the settlement of a firm’s inventory of claims 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. The company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. 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 December 31, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 6,235 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, which includes products manufactured by both the company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) (“Medtronic”), each a supplier of the company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product defect liability for products its subsidiaries had manufactured. As described below, in July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic regarding certain aspects of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. 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. In March 2016, the company reached an agreement in principle to resolve all Canadian putative class actions, with the exception of a Quebec class action, within amounts previously recorded by the company, which settlement was finalized in September 2016. In January 2017, the court approved the discontinuance of the proposed Quebec class action. 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, which was upheld by the Fourth Circuit on January 14, 2016. 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 “2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders”) (the timing for which is currently unknown). The 2014 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 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders. Substantially all of the 500 individual cases that are the subject of the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders have been part of agreements or agreements in principle to settle with various plaintiff law firms. In December 2016, the WV District Court lifted the stay of the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders and remanded five of the unsettled cases to their courts of original jurisdiction for trial. In response to a January 27, 2017 court order, the company is required to prepare an additional approximately 243 individual cases for trial (together with the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders, the “WHP Pre-Trial Orders”). 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 costs in future periods. As of December 31, 2016, the company reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 11,000 Women’s Health Product Claims, including approximately: 560 during 2014, 6,285 during 2015 and 4,155 during 2016. 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 lawsuits 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. 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 additional trials over the next 12 months. In addition, 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 has paid 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 600 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 830 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, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits 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 December 31, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 1,425 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various 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 1,375 Filter Product Claims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC Filter MDL, including one medical monitoring class action. The remaining approximately 50 Filter Product Claims are pending in various state courts. In March 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed against the company in Quebec. In April 2016 and May 2016, putative Canadian class actions were filed in Ontario and British Columbia, respectively. In November 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed in Saskatchewan. The approximate number of lawsuits set forth above does not include approximately 25 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. The company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the company. The company expects that trials of Filter Product Claims may 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, which if disputed, the company intends to vigorously contest. 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. In January 2017, the company reached an agreement to resolve litigation filed in the Southern District of New York by its insurance carriers in connection with Women’s Health Product Claims and Filter Product Claims. The agreement requires the insurance carriers to reimburse the company for certain future costs incurred in connection with Filter Product Claims up to an agreed amount. For certain product liability claims or lawsuits, the company does not maintain or has limited remaining insurance coverage. 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. Although the company has had discussions with the State Attorneys General with respect to overall potential resolution of this matter, there can be no assurance that a resolution will be reached or what the terms of any such resolution may be. 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 November 2015, the Department of Defense Inspector General issued an investigative subpoena to the company. The Department of Health and Human Services is also participating in this investigation. The subpoena seeks documents related to the company’s sales and marketing of certain filter products, drug coated balloon catheters, and peripheral arterial disease detection products. 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 June 2011, W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Delaware alleging the company had infringed several of Gore’s patents. Fact and expert discovery have been completed. In December 2015, the Delaware District Court granted the company’s summary judgment motion of no willful infringement. However, that decision was vacated in June 2016 due to a United States Supreme Court ruling that changed the test for willful infringement historically applied by the lower courts. In July 2016, the company’s summary judgment motion of laches (undue delay) was denied, at least in part because of the currently pending Supreme Court case on this issue, which was heard during the Fall 2016 term. Previously, the company filed a motion to dismiss a significant portion of Gore’s damages claim on the grounds that Gore lacks proper standing. This motion was converted to a motion for summary judgment and was granted in July 2016, effectively reducing the amount of potential damages. The trial has been set for March 2017. 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 2014, the company recorded a charge, net of estimated recoveries to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $259 million ($238 million after tax) related to certain of the product liability matters discussed above under the heading “Product Liability Matters”. The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained during the quarter, 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. 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 future 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 million ($325 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 future 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 million ($228 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 future 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. In the first quarter of 2016, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $49 million ($31 million after tax). The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained with respect to the quarter. Specifically, the company considered, among other factors, additional information learned regarding the nature and quantity of unfiled and filed claims, the increase in advertising by plaintiffs’ counsel with respect to IVC filters and an increase in the rate of claims being filed in Filter Product Claims (which led the company to increase its estimate of future Filter Product Claims). In the third quarter of 2016, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $111 million ($77 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, among other factors, additional information learned regarding Product Liability Matters, including regarding the nature and quantity of unfiled and filed claims and the continued rate of claims being filed in certain Product Liability Matters (which led the company to increase its estimate of future claims for certain Product Liability Matters, including Filter Product Claims). In the fourth quarter of 2016, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $46 million ($31 million after tax). The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained with respect to the quarter, including regarding cases settled by certain other manufacturers, public information available from the court, unfiled and filed claims, the status of certain settlement discussions and information regarding plaintiff law firm inventories. 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 certain of the putative class action lawsuits in the United States and Canada. 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 $1,201.5 million, of which $605.3 million was recorded to accrued expenses, and $1,174.3 million, of which $516.5 million was recorded to accrued expenses, at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The company has made total payments of $762.4 million to qualified settlement funds (“QSFs”), subject to certain settlement conditions, for certain product liability matters since 2011, of which $375.2 million were made to QSFs during 2016. Payments to QSFs are recorded as a component of restricted cash. Total payments of $562.7 million from these QSFs have been made to qualified claimants, of which $254.0 million were made during 2016. In addition, other payments of $73.3 million have been made to qualified claimants, of which $10.8 million were made during 2016. The company recorded expected recoveries related to product liability matters amounting to $267.3 million, of which $156.2 million was recorded to other current assets, and $132.8 million, of which $132.1 million was recorded to other assets, at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. A substantial amount of these expected recoveries at December 31, 2016 relate to the company’s agreements with Medtronic related to certain Women’s Health Product Claims. 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 December 31, 2016 and 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 and certain of the Canadian lawsuits 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 investigative subpoenas issued by various state and federal government agencies and other legal 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; and/or (ii) there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved. With respect to Gore’s suit against the company alleging infringement of certain of Gore’s patents, the company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) the stage of the proceedings; and/or (ii) there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved. The company is committed under noncancelable operating leases involving certain facilities and equipment. The minimum annual rentals under the terms of these leases are as follows: 2017 - $35.0 million; 2018 - $29.8 million; 2019 - $21.6 million; 2020 - $15.3 million; 2021 - $10.3 million and thereafter - $37.0 million. Total rental expense for operating leases approximated $34.8 million in 2016, $31.7 million in 2015 and $32.3 million in 2014.

10. Commitments and 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.

The company requires limited product warranty accruals as the majority of the company’s products are intended for single use. Certain of the company’s products carry limited warranties that in general do not exceed one year from sale. The company accrues estimated product warranty costs at the time of sale.

Product Liability Matters

Hernia Product Claims

As of December 31, 2016, approximately 25 federal and 65 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. 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. The MDL stopped accepting new cases in the second quarter of 2014 and was terminated in November 2016, at which time the remaining federal lawsuits were remanded to their courts of original jurisdiction for trial. As of December 31, 2016, all but one of the putative class actions pending against the company was dismissed. The remaining putative class action pending against the company has not been certified and 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 50 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 50 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.

The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving the settlement of a firm’s inventory of claims 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. The company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. 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 December 31, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 6,235 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, which includes products manufactured by both the company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) (“Medtronic”), each a supplier of the company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product defect liability for products its subsidiaries had manufactured. As described below, in July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic regarding certain aspects of Medtronic’s indemnification obligation. 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. In March 2016, the company reached an agreement in principle to resolve all Canadian putative class actions, with the exception of a Quebec class action, within amounts previously recorded by the company, which settlement was finalized in September 2016. In January 2017, the court approved the discontinuance of the proposed Quebec class action.

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, which was upheld by the Fourth Circuit on January 14, 2016. 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 “2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders”) (the timing for which is currently unknown). The 2014 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 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders. Substantially all of the 500 individual cases that are the subject of the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders have been part of agreements or agreements in principle to settle with various plaintiff law firms. In December 2016, the WV District Court lifted the stay of the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders and remanded five of the unsettled cases to their courts of original jurisdiction for trial. In response to a January 27, 2017 court order, the company is required to prepare an additional approximately 243 individual cases for trial (together with the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders, the “WHP Pre-Trial Orders”). 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 costs in future periods.

As of December 31, 2016, the company reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs’ law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 11,000 Women’s Health Product Claims, including approximately: 560 during 2014, 6,285 during 2015 and 4,155 during 2016. 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 lawsuits 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. 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 additional trials over the next 12 months. In addition, 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 has paid 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 600 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 830 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, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits 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 December 31, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 1,425 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various 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 1,375 Filter Product Claims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC Filter MDL, including one medical monitoring class action. The remaining approximately 50 Filter Product Claims are pending in various state courts. In March 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed against the company in Quebec. In April 2016 and May 2016, putative Canadian class actions were filed in Ontario and British Columbia, respectively. In November 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed in Saskatchewan. The approximate number of lawsuits set forth above does not include approximately 25 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. The company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the company’s estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the company. The company expects that trials of Filter Product Claims may 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, which if disputed, the company intends to vigorously contest. 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.

In January 2017, the company reached an agreement to resolve litigation filed in the Southern District of New York by its insurance carriers in connection with Women’s Health Product Claims and Filter Product Claims. The agreement requires the insurance carriers to reimburse the company for certain future costs incurred in connection with Filter Product Claims up to an agreed amount. For certain product liability claims or lawsuits, the company does not maintain or has limited remaining insurance coverage.

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. Although the company has had discussions with the State Attorneys General with respect to overall potential resolution of this matter, there can be no assurance that a resolution will be reached or what the terms of any such resolution may be. 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 November 2015, the Department of Defense Inspector General issued an investigative subpoena to the company. The Department of Health and Human Services is also participating in this investigation. The subpoena seeks documents related to the company’s sales and marketing of certain filter products, drug coated balloon catheters, and peripheral arterial disease detection products. 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 June 2011, W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Delaware alleging the company had infringed several of Gore’s patents. Fact and expert discovery have been completed. In December 2015, the Delaware District Court granted the company’s summary judgment motion of no willful infringement. However, that decision was vacated in June 2016 due to a United States Supreme Court ruling that changed the test for willful infringement historically applied by the lower courts. In July 2016, the company’s summary judgment motion of laches (undue delay) was denied, at least in part because of the currently pending Supreme Court case on this issue, which was heard during the Fall 2016 term. Previously, the company filed a motion to dismiss a significant portion of Gore’s damages claim on the grounds that Gore lacks proper standing. This motion was converted to a motion for summary judgment and was granted in July 2016, effectively reducing the amount of potential damages. The trial has been set for March 2017. 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 2014, the company recorded a charge, net of estimated recoveries to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $259 million ($238 million after tax) related to certain of the product liability matters discussed above under the heading “Product Liability Matters”. The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained during the quarter, 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. 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 future 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 million ($325 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 future 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 million ($228 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 future 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.

In the first quarter of 2016, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $49 million ($31 million after tax). The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained with respect to the quarter. Specifically, the company considered, among other factors, additional information learned regarding the nature and quantity of unfiled and filed claims, the increase in advertising by plaintiffs’ counsel with respect to IVC filters and an increase in the rate of claims being filed in Filter Product Claims (which led the company to increase its estimate of future Filter Product Claims).

In the third quarter of 2016, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $111 million ($77 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, among other factors, additional information learned regarding Product Liability Matters, including regarding the nature and quantity of unfiled and filed claims and the continued rate of claims being filed in certain Product Liability Matters (which led the company to increase its estimate of future claims for certain Product Liability Matters, including Filter Product Claims).

In the fourth quarter of 2016, the company recorded an additional charge related to these matters to other (income) expense, net, of approximately $46 million ($31 million after tax). The company recorded this charge based on additional information obtained with respect to the quarter, including regarding cases settled by certain other manufacturers, public information available from the court, unfiled and filed claims, the status of certain settlement discussions and information regarding plaintiff law firm inventories.

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 certain of the putative class action lawsuits in the United States and Canada.

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 $1,201.5 million, of which $605.3 million was recorded to accrued expenses, and $1,174.3 million, of which $516.5 million was recorded to accrued expenses, at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The company has made total payments of $762.4 million to qualified settlement funds (“QSFs”), subject to certain settlement conditions, for certain product liability matters since 2011, of which $375.2 million were made to QSFs during 2016. Payments to QSFs are recorded as a component of restricted cash. Total payments of $562.7 million from these QSFs have been made to qualified claimants, of which $254.0 million were made during 2016. In addition, other payments of $73.3 million have been made to qualified claimants, of which $10.8 million were made during 2016.

The company recorded expected recoveries related to product liability matters amounting to $267.3 million, of which $156.2 million was recorded to other current assets, and $132.8 million, of which $132.1 million was recorded to other assets, at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. A substantial amount of these expected recoveries at December 31, 2016 relate to the company’s agreements with Medtronic related to certain Women’s Health Product Claims. 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 December 31, 2016 and 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 and certain of the Canadian lawsuits 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 investigative subpoenas issued by various state and federal government agencies and other legal 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; and/or (ii) there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved. With respect to Gore’s suit against the company alleging infringement of certain of Gore’s patents, the company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) the stage of the proceedings; and/or (ii) there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved.

The company is committed under noncancelable operating leases involving certain facilities and equipment. The minimum annual rentals under the terms of these leases are as follows: 2017 - $35.0 million; 2018 - $29.8 million; 2019 - $21.6 million; 2020 - $15.3 million; 2021 - $10.3 million and thereafter - $37.0 million. Total rental expense for operating leases approximated $34.8 million in 2016, $31.7 million in 2015 and $32.3 million in 2014.