Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings From time to time, we are subject to claims alleging product liability, patent infringement or other claims incurred in the ordinary course of business. These may involve our United States or foreign operations, or sales by foreign distributors. Likewise, from time to time, the Company may receive an information request or subpoena from a government agency such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Justice, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Department of Labor, the Treasury Department or other federal and state agencies or foreign governments or government agencies. These information requests or subpoenas may or may not be routine inquiries, or may begin as routine inquiries and over time develop into enforcement actions of various types. Likewise, we receive reports of alleged misconduct from employees and third parties, which we investigate as appropriate. Manufacturers of medical devices have been the subject of various enforcement actions relating to interactions with health care providers domestically or internationally whereby companies are claimed to have provided health care providers with inappropriate incentives to purchase their products. Similarly, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") imposes obligations on manufacturers with respect to interactions with health care providers who may be considered government officials based on their affiliation with public hospitals. The FCPA also requires publicly listed manufacturers to maintain accurate books and records, and maintain internal accounting controls sufficient to provide assurance that transactions are accurately recorded, lawful and in accordance with management's authorization. The FCPA poses unique challenges both because manufacturers operate in foreign cultures in which conduct illegal under the FCPA may not be illegal in local jurisdictions, and because, in some cases, a United States manufacturer may face risks under the FCPA based on the conduct of third parties over whom the manufacturer may not have complete control. Manufacturers of medical products may face exposure to significant product liability claims. To date, we have not experienced any product liability claims that have been material to our financial statements or financial condition, but any such claims arising in the future could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or cash flows. We currently maintain commercial product liability insurance of $25 million per incident and $25 million in the aggregate annually, which we believe is adequate. This coverage is on a claims-made basis. There can be no assurance that claims will not exceed insurance coverage, that the carriers will be solvent or that such insurance will be available to us in the future at a reasonable cost. We establish reserves sufficient to cover probable losses associated with any such pending claims. We do not expect that the resolution of any pending claims, investigations or reports of alleged misconduct will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance, however, that future claims or investigations, or the costs associated with responding to such claims, investigations or reports of misconduct, especially claims and investigations not covered by insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Our operations are subject, and in the past have been subject, to a number of environmental laws and regulations governing, among other things, air emissions; wastewater discharges; the use, handling and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes; soil and groundwater remediation and employee health and safety. In some jurisdictions, environmental requirements may be expected to become more stringent in the future. In the United States, certain environmental laws can impose liability for the entire cost of site restoration upon each of the parties that may have contributed to conditions at the site regardless of fault or the lawfulness of the party’s activities. While we do not believe that the present costs of environmental compliance and remediation are material, there can be no assurance that future compliance or remedial obligations would not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In September 2013, Lexion Medical ("Lexion") filed suit against SurgiQuest in federal court in the District of Minnesota alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act, as well as various state law claims, including common law trade libel and unfair competition. In March 2014, SurgiQuest’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted and that same day, SurgiQuest filed suit against Lexion in federal court in the District of Delaware seeking, among other claims, a declaratory judgment that SurgiQuest’s actions did not violate the Lanham Act. Lexion filed an answer generally denying SurgiQuest’s claims, and asserted counterclaims that were substantially similar to the claims Lexion brought in the Minnesota action. The underlying claims were that SurgiQuest had engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act, and had engaged in violations of Delaware state laws, including deceptive trade practices and unfair competition. Lexion sought damages of $22.0 million for alleged lost profits and $18.7 million for costs related to alleged “corrective advertising” as well as an unspecified sum for disgorgement of SurgiQuest’s alleged profit. On January 4, 2016, SurgiQuest became a subsidiary of CONMED as further described in Note 3, and we assumed the costs and liabilities related to the Lexion lawsuit subject to the terms of the merger agreement referenced in Note 3. On April 11, 2017, a jury returned a verdict finding SurgiQuest liable for $2.2 million in compensatory damages with an additional $10.0 million in punitive damages. These costs are recorded in selling and administrative expense as of March 31, 2017. The Court entered judgment on April 13, 2017. We are currently evaluating our plans for an appeal. There can be no assurance an appeal will be successful, if we pursue one. In 2014, the Company acquired EndoDynamix, Inc. The agreement governing the terms of the acquisition provide that, if various conditions are met, certain contingent payments relating to the first commercial sale of the products (the milestone payment), as well as royalties based on sales (the revenue based payments), are due to the seller. We have notified the seller that there is a need to redesign the product, and that as a consequence, the first commercial sale has been delayed. Consequently, the payment of contingent milestone and revenue-based payments have been delayed. On January 18, 2017, the seller provided notice ("the Notice") seeking $12.7 million, which essentially represents the sum of the projected contingent milestone and revenue-based payments on an accelerated basis. CONMED responded to the Notice denying that there was any basis for acceleration of the payments due under the acquisition agreement. On February 22, 2017, the representative of the former shareholders of EndoDynamix filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court claiming breach of contract and seeking the contingent payments on an accelerated basis. We do not believe that there is a legitimate basis for seeking the acceleration of the contingent payments, and expect to defend the claims asserted by the sellers of EndoDynamix in the Delaware Court.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are subject to claims alleging product liability, patent infringement or other claims incurred in the ordinary course of business. These may involve our United States or foreign operations, or sales by foreign distributors. Likewise, from time to time, the Company may receive an information request or subpoena from a government agency such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Justice, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Department of Labor, the Treasury Department or other federal and state agencies or foreign governments or government agencies. These information requests or subpoenas may or may not be routine inquiries, or may begin as routine inquiries and over time develop into enforcement actions of various types. Likewise, we receive reports of alleged misconduct from employees and third parties, which we investigate as appropriate.

Manufacturers of medical devices have been the subject of various enforcement actions relating to interactions with health care providers domestically or internationally whereby companies are claimed to have provided health care providers with inappropriate incentives to purchase their products. Similarly, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") imposes obligations on manufacturers with respect to interactions with health care providers who may be considered government officials based on their affiliation with public hospitals. The FCPA also requires publicly listed manufacturers to maintain accurate books and records, and maintain internal accounting controls sufficient to provide assurance that transactions are accurately recorded, lawful and in accordance with management's authorization. The FCPA poses unique challenges both because manufacturers operate in foreign cultures in which conduct illegal under the FCPA may not be illegal in local jurisdictions, and because, in some cases, a United States manufacturer may face risks under the FCPA based on the conduct of third parties over whom the manufacturer may not have complete control.

Manufacturers of medical products may face exposure to significant product liability claims. To date, we have not experienced any product liability claims that have been material to our financial statements or financial condition, but any such claims arising in the future could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or cash flows. We currently maintain commercial product liability insurance of $25 million per incident and $25 million in the aggregate annually, which we believe is adequate. This coverage is on a claims-made basis. There can be no assurance that claims will not exceed insurance coverage, that the carriers will be solvent or that such insurance will be available to us in the future at a reasonable cost.

We establish reserves sufficient to cover probable losses associated with any such pending claims. We do not expect that the resolution of any pending claims, investigations or reports of alleged misconduct will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance, however, that future claims or investigations, or the costs associated with responding to such claims, investigations or reports of misconduct, especially claims and investigations not covered by insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Our operations are subject, and in the past have been subject, to a number of environmental laws and regulations governing, among other things, air emissions; wastewater discharges; the use, handling and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes; soil and groundwater remediation and employee health and safety. In some jurisdictions, environmental requirements may be expected to become more stringent in the future. In the United States, certain environmental laws can impose liability for the entire cost of site restoration upon each of the parties that may have contributed to conditions at the site regardless of fault or the lawfulness of the party’s activities. While we do not believe that the present costs of environmental compliance and remediation are material, there can be no assurance that future compliance or remedial obligations would not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In September 2013, Lexion Medical ("Lexion") filed suit against SurgiQuest in federal court in the District of Minnesota alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act, as well as various state law claims, including common law trade libel and unfair competition. In March 2014, SurgiQuest’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted and that same day, SurgiQuest filed suit against Lexion in federal court in the District of Delaware seeking, among other claims, a declaratory judgment that SurgiQuest’s actions did not violate the Lanham Act. Lexion filed an answer generally denying SurgiQuest’s claims, and asserted counterclaims that were substantially similar to the claims Lexion brought in the Minnesota action. The underlying claims were that SurgiQuest had engaged in false advertising under the Lanham Act, and had engaged in violations of Delaware state laws, including deceptive trade practices and unfair competition. Lexion sought damages of $22.0 million for alleged lost profits and $18.7 million for costs related to alleged “corrective advertising” as well as an unspecified sum for disgorgement of SurgiQuest’s alleged profit. On January 4, 2016, SurgiQuest became a subsidiary of CONMED as further described in Note 3, and we assumed the costs and liabilities related to the Lexion lawsuit subject to the terms of the merger agreement referenced in Note 3. On April 11, 2017, a jury returned a verdict finding SurgiQuest liable for $2.2 million in compensatory damages with an additional $10.0 million in punitive damages. These costs are recorded in selling and administrative expense as of March 31, 2017. The Court entered judgment on April 13, 2017. We are currently evaluating our plans for an appeal. There can be no assurance an appeal will be successful, if we pursue one.

In 2014, the Company acquired EndoDynamix, Inc. The agreement governing the terms of the acquisition provide that, if various conditions are met, certain contingent payments relating to the first commercial sale of the products (the milestone payment), as well as royalties based on sales (the revenue based payments), are due to the seller. We have notified the seller that there is a need to redesign the product, and that as a consequence, the first commercial sale has been delayed. Consequently, the payment of contingent milestone and revenue-based payments have been delayed. On January 18, 2017, the seller provided notice ("the Notice") seeking $12.7 million, which essentially represents the sum of the projected contingent milestone and revenue-based payments on an accelerated basis. CONMED responded to the Notice denying that there was any basis for acceleration of the payments due under the acquisition agreement. On February 22, 2017, the representative of the former shareholders of EndoDynamix filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court claiming breach of contract and seeking the contingent payments on an accelerated basis. We do not believe that there is a legitimate basis for seeking the acceleration of the contingent payments, and expect to defend the claims asserted by the sellers of EndoDynamix in the Delaware Court.