Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims and governmental inspections, audits or investigations pertaining to issues such as contract disputes, product liability, tax matters, patents and trademarks, advertising, governmental regulations, employment and other matters, including the matters described below. Under the terms of the distribution agreement we entered into with Kimberly-Clark Corporation (“Kimberly-Clark”) prior to our spin-off, legal proceedings, claims and other liabilities that are primarily related to our business are our responsibility and we are obligated to indemnify and hold Kimberly-Clark harmless for such matters (“Indemnification Obligation”). For the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 , we have incurred $6 million and $10 million , respectively, for such matters. Amounts incurred related to these matters in the comparable prior year periods were not material. The only exception to the Indemnification Obligation relates to the pain pump litigation referenced in this paragraph. We are one of several manufacturers of continuous infusion medical devices, such as our ON-Q PAINBUSTER pain pumps, that are involved in several different pending or threatened litigation matters from multiple plaintiffs alleging that use of the continuous infusion device to deliver anesthetics directly into a synovial joint after surgery resulted in postarthroscopic glenohumeral chondrolysis, or a disintegration of the cartilage covering the bones in the joint (typically, in the shoulder). Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. While Kimberly-Clark is retaining the liabilities related to these matters, the distribution agreement between us and Kimberly-Clark provides that we will indemnify Kimberly-Clark for any such claims or causes of actions arising after the spin-off. We have an Indemnification Obligation for, and have assumed the defense of, the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., f/k/a Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), filed on October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns. On March 21, 2016, we moved to dismiss the non-California plaintiffs, and on May 26, 2016, the court issued an order dismissing them. On June 14, 2016, the court granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to dismiss Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC and one of the other two remaining California plaintiffs, leaving only the current named plaintiff, Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC. On June 1, 2016, the plaintiff moved for class certification of a California-only damages class and a California-only injunctive relief class. Although the plaintiff did not also move for certification of a nationwide class to determine liability, damages, or injunctive relief, it did move for certification of a nationwide “issue” class purporting to resolve certain issues allegedly “common” to members of that class. On July 8, 2016, we moved for summary judgment. The parties also remain engaged in discovery. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the matter. In June 2015, we were served with a subpoena from the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General (“VA OIG”) seeking information related to the design, manufacture, testing, sale and promotion of MicroCool and other Company surgical gowns, and, in July 2015, we also became aware that the subpoena and an earlier VA OIG subpoena served on Kimberly-Clark requesting information about gown sales to the federal government are related to a United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation. In May 2016, we were also served with a subpoena from the Department of Justice seeking further information related to Company gowns. We could be subject to litigation relating to this investigation, by either governmental agencies or private parties. If a claim is asserted against Kimberly-Clark relating to MicroCool gowns or other Company surgical gowns, we expect that such a claim would give rise to an Indemnification Obligation under the distribution agreement with Kimberly-Clark. The Company is cooperating with the VA OIG’s request and the DOJ investigation. We have been served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and thereby artificially inflated the Company’s stock prices during the respective class periods. The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received Halyard Health securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for purchasers of Halyard Health securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. We operate in an industry characterized by extensive patent litigation and competitors may claim that our products infringe upon their intellectual property. Resolution of patent litigation or other intellectual property claims is typically time consuming and costly and can result in significant damage awards and injunctions that could prevent the manufacture and sale of the affected products or require us to make significant royalty payments in order to continue selling the affected products. At any given time we may be involved as either a plaintiff or a defendant in a number of patent infringement actions, the outcomes of which may not be known for prolonged periods of time. We maintain general and professional liability, product liability and other insurance in an amount that we believe is reasonably adequate to insulate us from material liability for claims. However, our insurance policies may not cover all of these matters and may not fully cover liabilities arising out of these matters. In addition, we may be obligated to indemnify our directors and officers against these matters. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the ultimate disposition of these matters, to the extent not previously provided for, will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. However the above matters, regardless of the outcome, could disrupt our business and result in substantial costs and diversion of management attention. We are subject to federal, state and local environmental protection laws and regulations with respect to our business operations and are operating in compliance with, or taking action aimed at ensuring compliance with, these laws and regulations. None of our compliance obligations with environmental protection laws and regulations, individually or in the aggregate, is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. |