Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, contingent liabilities and litigation	Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation Commitments Joint Venture With CVS Health Corporation In July 2014, we established Red Oak Sourcing, LLC ("Red Oak Sourcing"), a U.S.-based generic pharmaceutical sourcing entity with CVS Health Corporation (“CVS”) with an initial term of 10 years. Both companies have contributed sourcing and supply chain expertise to the 50/50 joint venture and have committed to source generic pharmaceuticals through arrangements negotiated by it. Red Oak Sourcing negotiates generic pharmaceutical supply contracts on behalf of both companies, but does not own products or hold inventory on behalf of either company. We are required to pay 39 quarterly payments of $25.6 million to CVS commencing in October 2014 and, only if certain milestones are achieved, to pay additional predetermined amounts to CVS beginning in fiscal 2016. The fixed payments of $25.6 million will be expensed evenly commencing during the second quarter of fiscal 2015. No physical assets were contributed by either company to Red Oak Sourcing, and minimal funding has been provided to capitalize the entity. Legal Proceedings We become involved from time to time in disputes, litigation and regulatory matters incidental to our business, including governmental investigations and enforcement actions, personal injury claims, employment matters, commercial disputes, intellectual property matters, government contract compliance matters, disputes regarding environmental clean-up costs, claims in connection with acquisitions and divestitures and other matters arising out of the normal conduct of our business. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in such matters. We may be named from time to time in qui tam actions, which are initiated by private third parties purporting to act on behalf of federal or state governments that allege that false claims have been submitted or have been caused to be submitted for payment by the government. After a private party has filed a qui tam action, the government must investigate the private party's claim and determine whether to intervene in and take control over the litigation. These actions may remain under seal while the government makes this determination. If the government declines to intervene, the private party may nonetheless continue to pursue the litigation on behalf of the government. In addition, we occasionally may suspect that products we manufacture, market or distribute do not meet product specifications, published standards or regulatory requirements. In such circumstances, we investigate and take appropriate corrective action. Such actions can lead to product recalls, costs to repair or replace affected products, temporary interruptions in product sales and action by regulators. We accrue for contingencies related to disputes, litigation and regulatory matters if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because these matters are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We regularly review contingencies to determine whether our accruals and related disclosures are adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates. With respect to the matters described below, we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for matters for which there is no accrual or additional loss for matters for which we already have recorded an accrual, since damages or fines have not been specified or the proceedings are at stages where significant uncertainty exists as to legal or factual issues and as to whether such matters will proceed to trial. We do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, though the outcome of one or more of these matters could be material to our results of operations for a particular period. We recognize income from the favorable outcome of litigation when we receive the associated cash or assets. We recognize estimated loss contingencies for litigation and regulatory matters and income from favorable resolution of litigation in litigation (recoveries)/charges, net in our condensed consolidated statements of earnings. DEA Investigation and Related Matters In February 2012, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (the "DEA") issued an order to show cause and immediate suspension of our Lakeland, Florida distribution center's registration to distribute controlled substances, asserting that we failed to maintain required controls against the diversion of controlled substances. In May 2012, we entered into a settlement agreement with the DEA that resolved the administrative aspects of the DEA's action. The settlement agreement did not foreclose the possibility of the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) seeking civil fines in Florida or elsewhere for the conduct covered by the settlement agreement. In that regard, we are continuing to provide information to and engage in discussions with several offices of the DOJ, including preliminary discussions regarding the feasibility of a settlement, and have accrued $27 million for this matter. State of West Virginia vs. Cardinal Health, Inc. In June 2012, the West Virginia Attorney General filed, and in January 2014 amended, complaints against 13 pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including us, in the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia alleging, among other things, that the distributors failed to maintain effective controls to guard against diversion of controlled substances in West Virginia, failed to report suspicious orders of controlled substances in accordance with the West Virginia Uniform Controlled Substances Act and were negligent in distributing controlled substances to pharmacies that serve individuals who abuse controlled substances. In addition to injunctive and other equitable relief, the complaints seek monetary damages and the creation of a court-supervised fund, to be financed by the defendants in these actions, for a medical monitoring program focused on prescription drug abuse. Federal False Claims Investigation As previously disclosed, the DOJ had requested information in connection with an investigation of possible violations of the federal False Claims Act with respect to our Medical segment’s administration of a prime vendor agreement with the federal government. The investigation was prompted by a qui tam action filed under seal by a private third party. In September 2014, the DOJ declined to intervene in the qui tam action. FTC Investigation The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has been investigating supplier arrangements involving our Nuclear Pharmacy Services division primarily focused on the period between 2003 and 2008, and we have been providing information to and cooperating with the FTC on this matter. We believe that the FTC commissioners are now considering whether or not to take civil action against us.

Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation

Commitments

Joint Venture With CVS Health Corporation

In July 2014, we established Red Oak Sourcing, LLC ("Red Oak Sourcing"), a U.S.-based generic pharmaceutical sourcing entity with CVS Health Corporation (“CVS”) with an initial term of 10 years. Both companies have contributed sourcing and supply chain expertise to the 50/50 joint venture and have committed to source generic pharmaceuticals through arrangements negotiated by it. Red Oak Sourcing negotiates generic pharmaceutical supply contracts on behalf of both companies, but does not own products or hold inventory on behalf of either company. We are required to pay 39 quarterly payments of $25.6 million to CVS commencing in October 2014 and, only if certain milestones are achieved, to pay additional predetermined amounts to CVS beginning in fiscal 2016. The fixed payments of $25.6 million will be expensed evenly commencing during the second quarter of fiscal 2015. No physical assets were contributed by either company to Red Oak Sourcing, and minimal funding has been provided to capitalize the entity.

Legal Proceedings

We become involved from time to time in disputes, litigation and regulatory matters incidental to our business, including governmental investigations and enforcement actions, personal injury claims, employment matters, commercial disputes, intellectual property matters, government contract compliance matters, disputes regarding environmental clean-up costs, claims in connection with acquisitions and divestitures and other matters arising out of the normal conduct of our business. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in such matters.

We may be named from time to time in qui tam actions, which are initiated by private third parties purporting to act on behalf of federal or state governments that allege that false claims have been submitted or have been caused to be submitted for payment by the government. After a private party has filed a qui tam action, the government must investigate the private party's claim and determine whether to intervene in and take control over the litigation. These actions may remain under seal while the government makes this determination. If the government declines to intervene, the private party may nonetheless continue to pursue the litigation on behalf of the government.

In addition, we occasionally may suspect that products we manufacture, market or distribute do not meet product specifications, published standards or regulatory requirements. In such circumstances, we investigate and take appropriate corrective action. Such actions can lead to product recalls, costs to repair or replace affected products, temporary interruptions in product sales and action by regulators.

We accrue for contingencies related to disputes, litigation and regulatory matters if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because these matters are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We regularly review contingencies to determine whether our accruals and related disclosures are adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates.

With respect to the matters described below, we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for matters for which there is no accrual or additional loss for matters for which we already have recorded an accrual, since damages or fines have not been specified or the proceedings are at stages where significant uncertainty exists as to legal or factual issues and as to whether such matters will proceed to trial. We do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, though the outcome of one or more of these matters could be material to our results of operations for a particular period.

We recognize income from the favorable outcome of litigation when we receive the associated cash or assets.

We recognize estimated loss contingencies for litigation and regulatory matters and income from favorable resolution of litigation in litigation (recoveries)/charges, net in our condensed consolidated statements of earnings.

DEA Investigation and Related Matters

In February 2012, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (the "DEA") issued an order to show cause and immediate suspension of our Lakeland, Florida distribution center's registration to distribute controlled substances, asserting that we failed to maintain required controls against the diversion of controlled substances. In May 2012, we entered into a settlement agreement with the DEA that resolved the administrative aspects of the DEA's action. The settlement agreement did not foreclose the possibility of the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) seeking civil fines in Florida or elsewhere for the conduct covered by the settlement agreement. In that regard, we are continuing to provide information to and engage in discussions with several offices of the DOJ, including preliminary discussions regarding the feasibility of a settlement, and have accrued $27 million for this matter.

State of West Virginia vs. Cardinal Health, Inc.

In June 2012, the West Virginia Attorney General filed, and in January 2014 amended, complaints against 13 pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including us, in the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia alleging, among other things, that the distributors failed to maintain effective controls to guard against diversion of controlled substances in West Virginia, failed to report suspicious orders of controlled substances in accordance with the West Virginia Uniform Controlled Substances Act and were negligent in distributing controlled substances to pharmacies that serve individuals who abuse controlled substances. In addition to injunctive and other equitable relief, the complaints seek monetary damages and the creation of a court-supervised fund, to be financed by the defendants in these actions, for a medical monitoring program focused on prescription drug abuse.

Federal False Claims Investigation

As previously disclosed, the DOJ had requested information in connection with an investigation of possible violations of the federal False Claims Act with respect to our Medical segment’s administration of a prime vendor agreement with the federal government. The investigation was prompted by a qui tam action filed under seal by a private third party. In September 2014, the DOJ declined to intervene in the qui tam action.

FTC Investigation

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has been investigating supplier arrangements involving our Nuclear Pharmacy Services division primarily focused on the period between 2003 and 2008, and we have been providing information to and cooperating with the FTC on this matter. We believe that the FTC commissioners are now considering whether or not to take civil action against us.