| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Contingencies The legal contingencies described in this footnote relate primarily to Wright Medical Technology, Inc., an indirect subsidiary of Wright Medical Group N.V., and are not necessarily applicable to Wright Medical Group N.V. or other affiliated entities. Maintaining separate legal entities within our corporate structure is intended to ring-fence liabilities. We believe our ring-fenced structure should preclude corporate veil-piercing efforts against entities whose assets are not associated with particular claims. As described below, our business is subject to various contingencies, including patent and other litigation, product liability claims, and a government inquiry. These contingencies could result in losses, including damages, fines, or penalties, any of which could be substantial, as well as criminal charges. Although such matters are inherently unpredictable, and negative outcomes or verdicts can occur, we believe we have significant defenses in all of them, and are vigorously defending all of them. However, we could incur judgments, pay settlements, or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of any matter. Such developments, if any, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which applicable amounts are accrued, or on our cash flows in the period in which amounts are paid, however we do not believe any of them will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. Our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss or the measurement of a loss can be complex. We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessment process relies on estimates and assumptions that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate. Unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that could cause us to change our estimates and assumptions. Governmental Inquiries On September 29, 2010, we entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG-HHS). The CIA was filed as Exhibit 10.2 to legacy Wright's current report on Form 8-K filed on September 30, 2010. The CIA expired on September 29, 2015, and on January 27, 2016, we received notification from the OIG-HHS that the term of the CIA has concluded. While the term of the CIA has concluded, our failure to continue to maintain compliance with U.S. healthcare laws, regulations, and other requirements in the future could expose us to significant liability, including, but not limited to, exclusion from U.S. federal healthcare program participation, including Medicaid and Medicare, potential prosecution, civil and criminal fines or penalties, as well as additional litigation cost and expense. On August 3, 2012, we received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee requesting records and documentation relating to our PROFEMUR ® series of hip replacement devices. The subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2000 to August 2, 2012. We continue to cooperate with the investigation. Patent Litigation In 2011, Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and Stryker Ireland, Ltd. (collectively, Stryker), each a subsidiary of Stryker Corporation, filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that we infringed Stryker's U.S. Patent No. 6,475,243 related to our LINEAGE ® Acetabular Cup System and DYNASTY ® Acetabular Cup System. The lawsuit seeks an order of infringement, injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and various other costs and relief. On July 9, 2013, the Court issued a claim construction ruling. On November 25, 2014, the Court entered judgment of non-infringement in our favor. On January 7, 2015, Howmedica and Stryker filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on December 10, 2015 and took the case under advisement. We are presently awaiting the Court’s written decision. In 2012, Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, LLC (Bonutti) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the United States Court for the District of Delaware. Subsequently, Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the Bonutti patents was sought before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On April 7, 2014, the Court stayed the case pending outcome of the IPR. Bonutti originally alleged that the Link Sled Prosthesis infringes U.S. Patent 6,702,821. The Link Sled Prosthesis is a product we distributed under a distribution agreement with LinkBio Corp, which expired on December 31, 2013. In January 2013, Bonutti amended its complaint, alleging that the ADVANCE ® knee system, including ODYSSEY ® instrumentation, infringes U.S. Patent 8,133,229, and that the ADVANCE ® knee system, including ODYSSEY ® instrumentation and PROPHECY ® guides, infringes U.S. Patent 7,806,896, which was issued on October 5, 2010. All of the claims of the asserted patents are directed to surgical methods for minimally invasive surgery. As a result of the arguments submitted in the IPR, Bonutti abandoned the claims subject to the IPR from U.S. Patent 8,133,229, leaving one claim from U.S. Patent 7,806,896 still pending before the Patent Office Board that administers IPR’s. On February 18, 2015, the Patent Office Board held that remaining claim invalid. Following the conclusion of the IPRs, the District Court lifted the stay. We have reached a settlement in principle with Bonutti and MicroPort for an immaterial amount, which is in the process of being documented. The settlement would resolve all causes of action asserted in the case and would grant to us and MicroPort fully paid-up licenses to Bonutti patents. In June 2013, Orthophoenix, LLC filed a patent lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the X-REAM ® product infringes two patents. In June 2014, we filed a request for IPR with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which was denied on December 16, 2014. Effective April 5, 2016, we entered into a Settlement and License Agreement with Orthophoenix, LLC pursuant to which Orthophoenix agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and WMT received a fully paid license to Orthophoenix’s patents. The case was formally dismissed with prejudice on April 20, 2016. We do not consider the settlement amount to be material. In June 2013, Anglefix, LLC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging that our ORTHOLOC ® products infringe Anglefix’s asserted patent. On April 14, 2014, we filed a request for IPR with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In October 2014, the Court stayed the case pending outcome of the IPR. On June 30, 2015, the Patent Office Board entered judgment in our favor as to all patent claims at issue in the IPR. Following the conclusion of the IPR, the District Court lifted the stay, and we are continuing with our defense as to remaining patent claims asserted by Anglefix. In February 2014, Biomedical Enterprises, Inc. filed suit against Solana Surgical, LLC (Solana) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging Solana's FuseForce Fixation system infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,584,853 entitled “Method and Apparatus for an Orthopedic Fixation System.” On February 20, 2015, Solana filed a request for IPR with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On February 27, 2015, Biomedical Enterprises filed an amended complaint to add WMG and WMT as parties to the litigation. On April 3, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice as to us. On August 10, 2015, the Patent Office Review Board initiated IPR as to all challenged patent claims. The Patent Office Board heard oral argument in the IPR proceeding on February 17, 2016. On May 4, 2016 the Patent Office Board issued an order finding that the contested claims were not unpatentable. We intend to appeal this decision. Additionally, we are proceeding with our defense before the District Court, with a trial scheduled to begin on June 6, 2016. On September 23, 2014, Spineology filed a patent infringement lawsuit, Case No. 0:14-cv-03767, in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, alleging that our X-REAM ® bone reamer infringes U.S. Patent No. RE42,757 entitled “EXPANDABLE REAMER.” In January 2015, as the deadline for service of its complaint, Spineology dismissed its complaint without prejudice and filed a new, identical complaint. We filed an answer to the new complaint with the Court on April 27, 2015 and discovery is underway. The Court conducted a Markman hearing on March 23, 2016 and has not yet issued a ruling. On January 13, 2015, we received a notice from Corin Limited claiming a portion of the INFINITY ® Total Ankle System infringes their patent rights in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. If a lawsuit is filed we will contest these claims vigorously. On March 1, 2016, Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation (MTF) filed suit against Solana and WMT in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the TenFUSE PIP product infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,432,436 entitled “Partially Demineralized Cortical Bone Constructs.” MTF has not yet served its complaint. We continue to investigate MTF’s allegations. Subject to the provisions of the asset purchase agreement with MicroPort for the sale of the OrthoRecon business, we, as between us and MicroPort, will continue to be responsible for defense of pre-existing patent infringement cases relating to the OrthoRecon business, and for resulting liabilities, if any. Product Liability We have received claims for personal injury against us associated with fractures of our PROFEMUR ® long titanium modular neck product (PROFEMUR ® Claims). As of May 2, 2016 there were 38 pending U.S. lawsuits and 44 pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims. The overall fracture rate for the product is low and the fractures appear, at least in part, to relate to patient demographics. Beginning in 2009, we began offering a cobalt-chrome version of our PROFEMUR ® modular neck, which has greater strength characteristics than the alternative titanium version. Historically, we have reflected our liability for these claims as part of our standard product liability accruals on a case-by-case basis. However, during the quarter ended September 30, 2011, as a result of an increase in the number and monetary amount of these claims, management estimated our liability to patients in North America who have previously required a revision following a fracture of a PROFEMUR ® long titanium modular neck, or who may require a revision in the future. Management has estimated that this aggregate liability ranges from approximately $21.9 million to $28.3 million . Any claims associated with this product outside of North America, or for any other products, will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis. Due to the uncertainty within our aggregate range of loss resulting from the estimation of the number of claims and related monetary payments, we have recorded a liability of $21.9 million , which represents the low-end of our estimated aggregate range of loss. We have classified $8.5 million of this liability as current in “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities” and $13.4 million as non-current in “Other liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet. We expect to pay the majority of these claims within the next three years. We are aware that MicroPort has recalled certain sizes of its cobalt chrome modular neck products as a result of alleged fractures. As of May 2, 2016, there were two pending U.S. lawsuits and two pending non-U.S. lawsuits against us alleging personal injury resulting from the fracture of a cobalt chrome modular neck. These claims will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis. We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a claims-made basis. During the quarter ended March 31, 2013, we received a customary reservation of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier asserting that present and future claims related to fractures of our PROFEMUR ® titanium modular neck hip products and which allege certain types of injury (Titanium Modular Neck Claims) would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position would be to place Titanium Modular Neck Claims into a single prior policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. Management agrees with the assertion that the Titanium Modular Neck Claims should be treated as a single occurrence, but notified the carrier that it disputed the carrier's selection of available policy years. During the second quarter of 2013, we received confirmation from the primary carrier confirming their agreement with our policy year determination. Based on our insurer's treatment of Titanium Modular Neck Claims as a single occurrence, we increased our estimate of the total probable insurance recovery related to Titanium Modular Neck Claims by $19.4 million , and recognized such additional recovery as a reduction to our selling, general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2013, within results of discontinued operations. In the quarter ended June 30, 2013, we received payment from the primary insurance carrier of $5 million . In the quarter ended September 30, 2013, we received payment of $10 million from the next insurance carrier in the tower. We have requested, but not yet received, payment of the remaining $25 million from the third insurance carrier in the tower for that policy period. The policies with the second and third carrier in this tower are “follow form” policies and management believes the third carrier should follow the coverage position taken by the primary and secondary carriers. On September 29, 2015, that third carrier asserted that the terms and conditions identified in its reservation of rights will preclude coverage for the Titanium Modular Neck Claims. We strongly dispute the carrier's position and, in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of the policy, have initiated an arbitration proceeding in London, England seeking payment of these funds. Pursuant to applicable accounting standards, we have reduced our insurance receivable balance for this claim to $0 , and recorded a $25 million charge within "Net loss from discontinued operations" during the year ended December 27, 2015. Claims for personal injury have also been made against us associated with our metal-on-metal hip products (primarily our CONSERVE ® product line). The pre-trial management of certain of these claims has been consolidated in the federal court system, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under multi-district litigation (MDL) and certain other claims by the Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP) in state court in Los Angeles County, California (collectively the Consolidated Metal-on-Metal Claims). As of May 2, 2016, there were 1,156 such lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an additional 22 cases pending in various state courts. We have also entered into 889 so called "tolling agreements" with potential claimants who have not yet filed suit. There are also 32 non-U.S. lawsuits presently pending. We believe we have data that supports the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip products. While continuing to dispute liability, we have participated in court supervised non-binding mediation in the multi-district federal court litigation and expect to begin similar mediation in the JCCP. The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015, we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages awarded. On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order reducing the punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1 million , but otherwise denied our motion. On May 4, 2016, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In light of the trial judge’s April 5 th order, we recorded an accrual for this verdict in the amount of $2 million within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities,” and a $2 million receivable associated with the probable recovery from product liability insurance is reflected within “Other current assets.” The supervising judge in the JCCP had set a trial date of March 14, 2016 for the first bellwether trial in California. Prior to commencement of the trial, we entered into a confidential settlement with the plaintiff which was paid by our insurance carrier. We do not consider the settlement amount to be material. We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a claims-made basis. During the quarter ended September 30, 2012, we received a customary reservation of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier asserting that certain present and future claims which allege certain types of injury related to our CONSERVE ® metal-on-metal hip products (CONSERVE ® Claims) would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position would be to place CONSERVE ® Claims into a single prior policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. Management agrees that there is insurance coverage for the CONSERVE ® Claims, but has notified the carrier that it disputes the carrier's characterization of the CONSERVE ® Claims as a single occurrence. Management has recorded an insurance receivable for the probable recovery of spending in excess of our retention for a single occurrence. As of May 2, 2016, we have received $9.2 million of insurance proceeds, and our insurance carrier has paid a total of $4.5 million directly to claimants in connection with various settlements of certain litigation, which represent the amount undisputed by the carrier for the policy year the first claim was asserted. Our acceptance of these proceeds was not a waiver of any other claim that we may have against the insurance carrier. As of March 27, 2016, this receivable totaled approximately $21.8 million , and is solely related to defense costs incurred through March 27, 2016, less insurance proceeds received, and the $2 million accrual for the MDL verdict discussed above. However, the amount we ultimately receive may differ depending on the final conclusion of the insurance policy year or years and the number of occurrences. We believe our contracts with the insurance carriers are enforceable for these claims; and, therefore, we believe it is probable that we will receive recoveries from our insurance carriers. However, our insurance carriers could still ultimately deny coverage for some or all of our insurance claims. In June 2014, St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Travelers), which was an excess carrier in our coverage towers across multiple policy years, filed a declaratory judgment action in Tennessee state court naming us and certain of our other insurance carriers as defendants and asking the court to rule on the rights and responsibilities of the parties with regard to the CONSERVE ® Claims. Among other things, Travelers appears to dispute our contention that the CONSERVE ® Claims arise out of more than a single occurrence thereby triggering multiple policy periods of coverage. Travelers further seeks a determination as to the applicable policy period triggered by the alleged single occurrence. We filed a separate lawsuit in state court in California for declaratory judgment against certain carriers and breach of contract against the primary carrier, and have moved to dismiss or stay the Tennessee action on a number of grounds, including that California is the most appropriate jurisdiction. During the third quarter of 2014, the California Court granted Travelers' motion to stay our California action. In May 2015, we entered into confidential settlement discussions with our insurance carriers through a private mediator. These discussions are continuing. Every metal-on-metal hip case involves fundamental issues of science and medicine that often are uncertain, that continue to evolve, and which present contested facts and issues that can differ significantly from case to case. Such contested facts and issues include medical causation, individual patient characteristics, surgery specific factors, and the existence of actual, provable injury. Given these complexities, we are unable to reasonably estimate a probable liability for these matters. Although we continue to contest liability, based upon currently available information, we estimate a reasonably possible range of liability for the Consolidated Metal-on-Metal Claims, before insurance recoveries, averaging up to $250,000 per case. Based upon the information we have at this time, we are unable to determine whether, or the extent to which, our liabilities in connection with these matters will exceed our available insurance. As noted below, we previously indicated a willingness to contribute funds in excess of available insurance coverage to facilitate a comprehensive settlement. As the number of metal-on-metal hip cases increases, it is reasonably possible a larger contribution may be necessary in order to achieve a comprehensive settlement among claimants and insurers. Additionally, and also as described below, we are currently litigating coverage issues with certain of our carriers. As the litigation moves forward and circumstances continue to develop, our belief that we will be able to resolve the Consolidated Metal-on-Metal Claims within available insurance coverage could change, which could materially impact our results of operations and financial position. We previously indicated a willingness to contribute up to $30 million to achieve a comprehensive settlement among claimants and insurers. Due to continuing uncertainty around (i) whether a multi-party comprehensive settlement can be achieved, (ii) the outcome of our coverage litigation with insurers which could impact the ability to reach a settlement and (iii) the case by case outcomes of metal-on-metal claims litigated (and which we expect to contest vigorously), we are unable to reasonably estimate a probable liability for these matters, and, therefore, no amounts have been accrued. In addition to the Consolidated Metal-on-Metal Claims discussed above, there are currently certain other pending claims related to our metal-on-metal hip products for which we are accounting in accordance with our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis. Certain liabilities associated with legacy Wright's OrthoRecon business, including product liability claims associated with hip and knee products sold prior to the closing, were not assumed by MicroPort. Liabilities associated with these product liability claims, including legal defense, settlements and judgments, income associated with product liability insurance recoveries, and changes to any contingent liabilities associated with the OrthoRecon business have been reflected within results of discontinued operations, and we will continue to reflect these within results of discontinued operations in future periods. MicroPort is responsible for product liability claims associated with products it sells after the closing. In June 2015, a jury returned a $4.4 million verdict against us in a case involving a fractured hip implant stem sold prior to the MicroPort closing. This was a one-of-a-kind case unrelated to the modular neck fracture cases we have been reporting. There are no other cases pending related to this component, nor are we aware of other instances where this component has fractured. In September 2015, the trial judge reduced the jury verdict to $1.025 million and indicated that if the plaintiff did not accept the reduced award he would schedule a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff elected not to accept the reduced damage award, and both parties have appealed. The Court has not set a date for a new trial on the issue of damages and we do not expect it will do so until the appeals are adjudicated. We will maintain our current $4.4 million accrual as a probable liability until the matter is resolved. The $4.4 million probable liability associated with this matter is reflected within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities,” and a $4 million receivable associated with the probable recovery from product liability insurance is reflected within “Other current assets.” MicroPort Indemnification Claim In July 2015, we received demand letters from MicroPort seeking indemnification under the terms of the asset purchase agreement for the sale of our OrthoRecon business for losses or potential losses it has incurred or may incur as a result of either alleged breaches of representations in the asset purchase agreement or alleged unassumed liabilities. MicroPort asserted that the range of potential losses for which it seeks indemnity is between $18.5 million and $30 million . We responded to MicroPort's demand letters and received a further demand letter reiterating each of their claims and providing revised claim amounts. In this letter MicroPort asserted that the range of potential losses for which it seeks indemnity is between $77.5 million and $112.5 million . On October 27, 2015, MicroPort filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Wright Medical Group N.V. alleging that we breached the indemnification provisions of the asset purchase agreement by failing to indemnify MicroPort for alleged damages arising out of certain pre-closing matters and for breach of certain representations and warranties. The complaint includes claims relating to MicroPort’s recall of certain of its cobalt chrome modular neck products, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount plus attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as declaratory judgment. On January 4, 2016, we filed an answer to the complaint and also filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory judgment and indemnification and other damages in an unspecified amount from MicroPort. On April 28, 2016, we entered into a mutual settlement agreement with MicroPort pursuant to which the lawsuit, including all claims and counterclaims that were brought in the lawsuit, will be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement agreement resolves all known issues between the parties. We have recognized the settlement within “Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax” for the three months ended March 27, 2015. We do not consider the settlement amount to be material. Other In addition to those noted above, we are subject to various other legal proceedings, product liability claims, corporate governance, and other matters which arise in the ordinary course of business. |
