Choosing an Ozempic Lawsuit Attorney: What to Look For

The legal landscape surrounding Ozempic and semaglutide medications involves product liability claims against pharmaceutical manufacturer Novo Nordisk, alleging failure to warn patients and healthcare providers about serious health risks associated with these GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.

As of November 2025, 2,914 lawsuits have been consolidated by the judicial panel in MDL 3094 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Karen S. Marston, with legal experts estimating that thousands of additional cases remain under investigation.

These lawsuits claim that Novo Nordisk knew or should have known about severe complications including gastroparesis and vision loss from Ozempic and other semaglutide medications but failed to provide adequate warnings on product labels or through direct communication with medical professionals.

Types of Injuries in Ozempic Litigation

Plaintiffs in Ozempic litigation report a range of serious, often permanent injuries that have substantially impacted their health and quality of life.

The severity of these conditions and increasing news coverage has driven rapid growth in the MDL, with more than 100 new lawsuits filed in October 2025 alone.

Plaintiffs in Ozempic litigation report injuries that have substantially impacted their health and quality of life:

• Gastroparesis (stomach paralysis) causing severe vomiting, inability to digest food properly, and malnutrition requiring feeding tubes
• Non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) resulting in sudden, permanent vision loss affecting one or both eyes
• Ileus and intestinal obstruction requiring emergency hospitalization and surgical procedures
• Severe gastrointestinal complications including bowel perforation and chronic digestive dysfunction
• Gallbladder disease necessitating surgical removal
• Aspiration pneumonia from persistent vomiting and impaired gastric emptying

Gastroparesis affects approximately 4% of the population, but studies show that patients with definite gastroparesis have a 5-year survival rate of only 67% – considerably lower than the 81% expected survival rate in the general population.

The condition causes the stomach muscles to stop working properly, preventing food from moving into the small intestine at a normal rate and often resulting in severe abdominal pain.

Many Ozempic patients experience severe vomiting, dramatic weight loss, and chronic malnutrition that requires hospitalization for feeding tube placement or total parenteral nutrition.

NAION represents an equally devastating complication, causing sudden and irreversible vision loss when blood flow to the optic nerve stops, requiring patients to seek medical attention immediately.

The World Health Organization warned in June 2025 that semaglutide drugs may cause NAION, with the European Medicines Agency classifying it as a “very rare” side effect potentially affecting up to 1 in 10,000 Ozempic users.

Studies published in 2024 that linked Ozempic and other semaglutide medications to NAION showed patients had more than a fourfold heightened risk of developing this condition compared to those not taking GLP-1 medications.

Unlike many medical conditions, NAION has no effective treatment available, making the vision loss permanent in nearly all cases.

If you or a loved one experienced gastroparesis, vision loss, or other severe health complications after taking Ozempic, Wegovy, or Rybelsus, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an Ozempic lawsuit today.

Legal Basis for Ozempic Claims

Ozempic lawsuits rest on established products liability litigation theories that hold pharmaceutical manufacturers responsible for ensuring drug safety and providing adequate warnings about known risks.

The primary legal theory involves failure to warn claims under both strict liability and negligence doctrines.

Product liability claims against Novo Nordisk rest on several established legal theories:

• Failure to warn patients and healthcare providers about the risk of gastroparesis despite evidence suggesting Novo Nordisk knew or should have known about this severe complication
• Inadequate labeling that minimized the severity and permanence of gastrointestinal side effects
• Defective warnings that failed to communicate the risk of NAION and permanent vision loss to prescribing physicians
• Negligent testing and post-market surveillance that should have detected these patterns of serious adverse events earlier
• Breach of implied warranty that the medication was safe for its intended use when prescribed as directed

The FDA’s regulatory timeline supports plaintiff allegations that warnings came too late.

The FDA approved Ozempic in December 2017 for type 2 diabetes treatment, but the agency didn’t add ileus warnings to the label until September 2023 – nearly six years after approval.

Even more concerning, the FDA updated Ozempic’s warning label in January 2025 to state that Ozempic is “not recommended in patients with severe gastroparesis,” but this warning doesn’t indicate that the drug itself may cause the condition.

This delayed and inadequate labeling forms the basis for failure-to-warn claims, which argue that had patients and doctors received proper warnings about gastroparesis and vision loss risks, many would have chosen alternative diabetes medications or weight loss treatments.

Pharmaceutical product liability law imposes a continuing duty on manufacturers to monitor post-market safety data and update warnings about potential risks as new information emerges.

Plaintiffs allege that Novo Nordisk failed to meet this obligation despite reports of adverse reactions including gastroparesis and NAION cases appearing in medical literature and FDA adverse event databases.

The company’s alleged knowledge of these adverse effects, combined with inadequate labeling updates, strengthens the legal basis for both compensatory and potentially punitive damages in individual cases.

TruLaw partners with pharmaceutical litigation leaders who possess deep knowledge of FDA regulatory requirements and product liability law, ensuring clients receive representation from attorneys who can effectively evaluate eligibility and build strong cases based on these legal theories.

The power imbalance between individual plaintiffs and pharmaceutical manufacturers makes specialized legal representation not just beneficial but necessary for achieving fair outcomes in Ozempic litigation.

Novo Nordisk is a multinational drug company with billions of dollars in annual revenue and access to the most sophisticated defense firms in the country.

Major pharmaceutical companies employ national coordinating counsel managing thousands of cases, with dozens of law firms and hundreds of lawyers working in coordinated MDL proceedings to minimize liability and reduce settlement values.

Without experienced legal representation, individual plaintiffs face overwhelming disadvantages in resources, expertise, and procedural knowledge that can result in case dismissal or settlements that fail to account for lifetime damages.

The Pharmaceutical Defense Advantage

Pharmaceutical manufacturers deploy extensive legal resources and defense strategies specifically designed to overwhelm individual plaintiffs and delay resolutions in mass tort litigation.

These tactics include aggressive motion practice, extensive discovery demands, and expert witness challenges that can derail inadequately prepared cases.

Novo Nordisk deploys extensive legal resources designed to minimize liability and delay resolutions:

• Teams of experienced MDL defense lawyers from elite firms specializing in pharmaceutical litigation
• Unlimited financial resources to fund lengthy litigation, hire top medical experts, and pursue every available defense strategy
• Sophisticated damage minimization strategies that challenge causation, pre-existing conditions, and alternative explanations for injuries
• Coordinated national defense strategy ensuring consistency across all pending Ozempic cases in the MDL
• Access to regulatory experts and FDA documentation to argue that label warnings were adequate at the time of prescription

Defense counsel in pharmaceutical MDLs typically file Daubert motions challenging the admissibility of plaintiff expert testimony, arguing that the scientific evidence doesn’t support causation between the drug and claimed injuries.

These motions require plaintiff attorneys to present peer-reviewed studies, medical literature, and expert opinions that meet rigorous scientific standards.

Without attorneys experienced in pharmaceutical causation issues and Daubert challenges, plaintiffs risk having their entire case dismissed before reaching settlement negotiations or trial.

The defense also employs document production strategies designed to bury relevant information in millions of pages of corporate records, requiring plaintiff counsel to have resources for extensive document review, analysis, and organization.

Novo Nordisk’s internal communications, safety databases, and regulatory submissions contain the evidence needed to prove knowledge of gastroparesis and NAION risks, but extracting and presenting this information requires legal teams with experience handling massive pharmaceutical discovery.

If you developed serious health complications after taking Ozempic and need experienced legal representation to pursue legal action against pharmaceutical defense tactics, you may be eligible for compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation from attorneys who partner with pharmaceutical litigation leaders equipped to handle these powerful defendants in your Ozempic lawsuit.

MDL Experience and Coordination

Multidistrict litigation involves procedural challenges and coordination needs that differ dramatically from standard personal injury cases, making MDL-specific experience a required qualification rather than a preference when selecting Ozempic lawsuit attorneys.

Multidistrict litigation demands specialized knowledge distinct from standard personal injury practice:

• Knowledge of MDL procedural rules, bellwether trial selection processes, and common benefit fund assessments
• Coordination with lead counsel and plaintiff steering committees managing discovery and overall MDL strategy
• Familiarity with master complaint requirements, plaintiff fact sheet deadlines, and coordinated expert disclosures
• Knowledge of how bellwether trial results influence settlement negotiations and individual case values
• Experience balancing coordination benefits with preserving individual case value through effective participation in MDL proceedings

The Ozempic MDL operates under specific case management orders establishing deadlines for plaintiff fact sheets, expert reports, and other litigation requirements.

Attorneys unfamiliar with MDL procedures may miss important deadlines that could result in case dismissal or exclusion from bellwether trial pools.

Plaintiff fact sheets require detailed information about prescription history, medical treatment, and damages that must be accurate and complete – errors or omissions can weaken cases or provide ammunition for defense arguments about credibility.

Bellwether trials serve as test cases that help both sides evaluate the strength of their positions and inform settlement negotiations.

The first Ozempic bellwether trials are expected in 2026, and cases selected for this pool typically involve plaintiffs with strong medical documentation, clear causation, and compelling damages.

Attorneys with MDL experience know how to position clients for bellwether selection if appropriate, or how to leverage bellwether results to negotiate favorable settlements for cases that don’t go to trial.

TruLaw partners with national law firm networks and pharmaceutical litigation leaders nationwide who serve in leadership roles or work closely with MDL steering committees, providing clients with representation that combines individual attention with the strategic advantages of coordinated litigation.

Selecting an attorney for Ozempic litigation requires evaluating specific qualifications that directly impact case outcomes, from pharmaceutical litigation experience to medical expert networks and trial capabilities.

Generic personal injury experience, while valuable in standard accident cases, does not prepare attorneys for the regulatory challenges, scientific causation issues, and procedural requirements inherent in pharmaceutical mass tort litigation.

Attorneys handling Ozempic cases must demonstrate expertise in FDA regulations, product liability law, medical causation standards, and the specialized procedures governing multi district litigation proceedings.

Pharmaceutical Litigation Experience

Pharmaceutical litigation demands specialized knowledge that attorneys typically develop through years of focused practice in this specific area of law, not through general personal injury work or occasional pharmaceutical cases.

Attorneys handling Ozempic cases must demonstrate expertise developed through years of focused pharmaceutical practice:

• Direct participation in previous pharmaceutical MDLs or mass tort cases involving dangerous drugs or medical devices
• Proven ability to work with medical experts, toxicologists, and regulatory specialists who can establish causation
• Track record of securing favorable settlements or verdicts in cases involving failure-to-warn claims against drug manufacturers
• Familiarity with FDA regulatory processes, label warning requirements, and post-market surveillance obligations
• Experience handling Daubert challenges and defending expert testimony under federal evidence rules

Attorneys with pharmaceutical litigation backgrounds possess institutional knowledge about how drug manufacturers operate, how FDA approval processes work, and what evidence typically exists in corporate files to support failure-to-warn claims.

This experience proves invaluable when crafting discovery requests that target specific types of documents (such as adverse event reports, internal safety reviews, and communications with regulatory agencies) that establish manufacturer knowledge of risks.

The difference between pharmaceutical and general personal injury practice becomes apparent during expert witness preparation.

Pharmaceutical cases require medical experts who can testify not only about causation (that the drug caused the injury) but also about foreseeability (that the manufacturer should have known about the risk).

Attorneys inexperienced in pharmaceutical litigation may hire experts who can address causation but lack the regulatory expertise to opine about warning adequacy, weakening the overall case.

Board Certification and Professional Recognition

Professional credentials and peer recognition provide objective evidence of an attorney’s expertise and reputation within the legal community, though they should be evaluated alongside practical experience and case results.

Board certification and peer recognition provide objective evidence of an attorney’s expertise:

• Board certification in civil trial law demonstrating advanced trial skills and peer recognition
• Membership in professional organizations like the American Association for Justice (AAJ) or Mass Tort Made Perfect
• Recognition in publications such as Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, or Martindale-Hubbell AV ratings
• Leadership positions in MDL steering committees or plaintiff liaison roles in pharmaceutical litigation
• Speaking engagements and publications on pharmaceutical liability, MDL procedure, or product liability law

Board certification typically requires attorneys to pass rigorous examinations, demonstrate substantial trial experience, and obtain peer recommendations from judges and other attorneys.

While not every excellent pharmaceutical litigator holds board certification, this credential signals a commitment to professional excellence and specialization.

Similarly, leadership positions in MDL steering committees indicate that judges and fellow plaintiff attorneys recognize the lawyer’s expertise and trust them to help manage sophisticated litigation affecting thousands of plaintiffs.

Professional recognition should be considered as supporting evidence of qualification rather than a primary factor.

An attorney with decades of pharmaceutical MDL experience but minimal professional awards may be far more qualified than a highly decorated lawyer whose practice focuses primarily on car accidents with only occasional pharmaceutical cases.

Willingness to Take Cases to Trial

Trial capability separates attorneys who can credibly threaten litigation from those who must accept whatever settlement defendants offer, directly impacting the compensation clients ultimately receive in pharmaceutical mass tort cases.

Trial readiness directly impacts the compensation clients ultimately receive in pharmaceutical mass tort cases:

• Proven trial experience in federal court handling pharmaceutical or sophisticated product liability cases
• Financial and logistical ability to prepare cases for trial, including funding expert depositions and trial preparation costs
• Track record of securing favorable verdicts that exceeded defense settlement offers
• Litigation staff and resources necessary to handle the demands of trial preparation in MDL proceedings
• Demonstrated willingness to reject inadequate settlement offers and proceed to trial when necessary

Pharmaceutical companies closely monitor which attorneys actually try cases versus those who invariably settle before trial.

Defense counsel offer substantially lower settlements to attorneys with no trial track record, knowing these lawyers lack the resources or willingness to proceed to verdict.

In contrast, attorneys with histories of successful pharmaceutical trials command respect from defense counsel and receive settlement offers that reflect the true risk of adverse jury verdicts.

Bellwether trials in the Ozempic MDL will likely begin in 2026, and results from these early test cases will substantially influence settlement values for all pending cases.

Attorneys with trial capabilities can position clients for bellwether selection if the case presents strong facts, or they can leverage successful bellwether verdicts to negotiate improved settlements for clients whose cases don’t proceed to trial.

If you suffered gastroparesis, vision loss, or other serious injuries after taking Ozempic and need attorneys with the qualifications and trial experience to optimize your compensation, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page for an instant case evaluation from attorneys who partner with pharmaceutical litigation leaders possessing proven trial capabilities in Ozempic cases.

An attorney’s history of results in pharmaceutical litigation provides the most reliable indicator of their ability to secure favorable outcomes in Ozempic cases, revealing not just win rates but also settlement values, case intricacy, and the caliber of opposing counsel they’ve successfully confronted.

Previous Case Results and Settlements

Settlement and verdict history in pharmaceutical cases demonstrates an attorney’s effectiveness at securing compensation for clients harmed by dangerous drugs, though past results never guarantee future outcomes due to case-specific factors.

Settlement and verdict history reveals an attorney’s effectiveness at securing compensation for pharmaceutical injury clients:

• Dollar amounts recovered in settlements or verdicts for clients in previous pharmaceutical MDLs or mass tort cases
• Intricacy and similarity of previous cases to Ozempic litigation (failure-to-warn claims, gastrointestinal injuries, permanent disabilities)
• Quality of opposing counsel and pharmaceutical defendants successfully held accountable in past litigation
• Types of damages secured including economic losses, pain and suffering, and any punitive damages awards
• Client testimonials or case studies demonstrating successful representation in pharmaceutical injury cases

Attorneys should be able to discuss specific pharmaceutical cases they’ve handled, including the types of injuries involved, the legal theories pursued, and the results achieved.

For example, experience with previous GLP-1 drug litigation, diabetes medication cases, or other failure-to-warn pharmaceutical claims provides directly relevant background for Ozempic cases.

Similarly, experience with permanent injury cases (where damages include lifetime medical care and permanent disability) translates well to gastroparesis and NAION claims.

Be cautious of attorneys who advertise inflated settlement amounts without context.

A “$50 million settlement” may sound impressive, but if it represented compensation divided among 500 clients, individual recoveries averaged only $100,000 – potentially inadequate for cases involving permanent gastroparesis requiring lifetime medical treatment.

Ask attorneys to explain typical settlement ranges for cases similar to yours, accounting for injury severity, age, lost income, and medical expenses.

Reputation Among Judges and Opposing Counsel

Professional reputation within the legal community directly impacts case outcomes, as judges trust experienced pharmaceutical litigators to efficiently manage sophisticated cases while defense counsel take seriously those attorneys known for trial capabilities.

Standing within the legal community directly impacts case outcomes in pharmaceutical litigation:

• Standing with federal judges who preside over MDL proceedings, reflected in appointments to leadership positions or steering committees
• Respect from defense counsel at major pharmaceutical defense firms who recognize the attorney’s trial capabilities and preparation
• Collaborative relationships with other plaintiff attorneys in pharmaceutical litigation, enabling resource sharing and coordinated strategies
• Disciplinary history and ethical standing with state bar associations
• References from other attorneys, clients, or medical professionals who have worked with the lawyer

Judges presiding over MDLs frequently appoint experienced pharmaceutical litigators to steering committees or liaison positions precisely because these attorneys have earned reputations for professional competence, ethical practice, and effective case management.

An attorney serving in MDL leadership positions brings credibility that benefits all their clients, as judges are more likely to rule favorably on motions and defense counsel take their settlement demands seriously.

Reputation can be assessed through several methods: reviewing court records for past case involvement, checking state bar websites for disciplinary actions, researching whether the attorney has published articles or presented at legal education programs, and requesting references from past pharmaceutical clients.

Attorneys with strong reputations have nothing to hide and welcome inquiries about their professional standing.

Success Rate in Similar Cases

Win rates and success patterns in pharmaceutical failure-to-warn cases provide insight into an attorney’s effectiveness at proving causation, defeating defense motions, and securing favorable outcomes against well-funded pharmaceutical defendants.

Win rates and success patterns provide insight into an attorney’s effectiveness against well-funded pharmaceutical defendants:

• Percentage of pharmaceutical cases resolved favorably through settlement or verdict versus those dismissed or lost at trial
• Track record defeating Daubert challenges to expert testimony in pharmaceutical causation cases
• History of surviving motions to dismiss and summary judgment motions filed by pharmaceutical defendants
• Patterns of settlement timing (early resolution versus lengthy litigation) and how this affected overall recovery amounts
• Ability to secure compensation even in cases with challenging facts or pre-existing medical conditions

A 100% success rate may indicate an attorney who only accepts the strongest cases while declining representation of plaintiffs with more challenging circumstances.

Conversely, some case losses or dismissals in an attorney’s history may simply reflect the reality of pharmaceutical litigation – some cases involve genuine questions about causation, and even experienced attorneys lose cases when evidence doesn’t support plaintiff claims.

What matters more than a perfect record is the attorney’s overall pattern of securing fair compensation for clients in cases similar to yours.

Ask potential attorneys about cases they’ve declined and why.

Ethical lawyers turn down cases lacking merit rather than taking contingency fees from clients who have little chance of recovery.

An attorney who carefully screens cases for viability while accepting challenging cases with strong medical evidence demonstrates the right balance of selectivity and advocacy.

TruLaw partners with pharmaceutical litigation leaders whose track records include substantial settlements and verdicts in pharmaceutical failure-to-warn cases, providing clients with representation from attorneys whom judges and defense counsel take seriously.

Pharmaceutical litigation requires attorneys to function at the intersection of law, medicine, and science, demanding fluency in medical terminology, knowledge of drug mechanisms, and ability to work with expert witnesses who can translate intricate scientific concepts for judges and juries.

Knowledge of Gastroparesis and NAION

Attorneys handling Ozempic cases must possess detailed medical expertise about the injuries their clients suffered, enabling them to recognize the full scope of damages, identify all necessary medical experts, and effectively communicate the severity of these conditions.

Attorneys must possess detailed medical expertise about gastroparesis and NAION to fully represent injured clients:

• Gastroparesis pathophysiology, including how delayed gastric emptying affects digestion, nutrition, and overall health
• NAION mechanism of injury and why this optic nerve damage causes sudden, irreversible vision loss
• Treatment options for gastroparesis (dietary modifications, medications, feeding tubes) and their limitations
• Long-term health implications of stomach paralysis including malnutrition, aspiration risk, and reduced life expectancy
• Diagnostic procedures used to confirm gastroparesis and NAION, and how medical records document these medical issues

Gastroparesis involves more than simple nausea or vomiting – it represents a serious, often permanent condition where stomach muscles stop contracting properly, preventing food from moving into the small intestine.

Patients with definite gastroparesis have a 5-year survival rate of only 67% compared to 81% expected in the general population, and many require hospitalization for feeding tube placement or total parenteral nutrition to prevent starvation.

Attorneys must grasp these long-term implications of serious medical conditions to accurately calculate lifetime damages including medical care, lost earning capacity, and reduced quality of life.

NAION causes devastating vision loss that occurs suddenly and usually affects one eye, though the second eye develops NAION in approximately 15-25% of cases within five years.

The condition results from blocked blood flow to the optic nerve and has no effective treatment, making the vision loss permanent in nearly all cases.

Recent studies show patients taking semaglutide and other semaglutide drugs have more than a fourfold higher risk of developing NAION compared to those not taking GLP-1 medications, and the World Health Organization issued warnings in June 2025 about this serious complication.

Ability to Work with Medical Experts

Success in pharmaceutical litigation depends heavily on expert witness testimony establishing that the drug caused the plaintiff’s injuries and that the manufacturer knew or should have known about these risks, requiring attorneys skilled at identifying, retaining, and preparing qualified medical experts.

Success in pharmaceutical litigation depends on identifying, retaining, and preparing qualified medical experts:

• Relationships with board-certified gastroenterologists who can testify about gastroparesis causation and treatment
• Access to neuro-ophthalmologists capable of explaining NAION mechanism and linking it to semaglutide use
• Network of FDA regulatory experts who can opine about warning label adequacy and manufacturer obligations
• Connections with toxicologists and pharmacologists who know GLP-1 receptor agonist drug mechanisms
• Ability to prepare experts for deposition and trial testimony, including defending their opinions against Daubert challenges

Pharmaceutical defendants always challenge plaintiff expert testimony through Daubert motions arguing that the scientific methodology underlying expert opinions doesn’t meet federal evidence standards.

Attorneys must work with experts to ensure their opinions rest on peer-reviewed studies, established scientific principles, and reliable methodologies that will survive these challenges.

A single successful Daubert motion excluding a plaintiff’s causation expert can end the case, making expert quality and preparation absolutely vital.

The cost of retaining qualified medical experts in pharmaceutical cases ranges from $15,000 to $50,000 per expert for review, report preparation, deposition, and trial testimony.

Cases typically require multiple experts: a treating physician to discuss the plaintiff’s specific medical history, a causation expert to establish that Ozempic caused the injury, and a regulatory expert to testify about warning label inadequacies.

Attorneys must have the financial resources to fund these expert costs without requiring upfront payment from clients.

Pharmaceutical Industry Knowledge

Knowing how pharmaceutical companies operate (from drug development and FDA approval to post-market surveillance and safety monitoring) enables attorneys to identify where evidence of manufacturer knowledge exists and how to obtain it through discovery.

Knowledge of pharmaceutical company operations enables attorneys to identify where evidence of manufacturer knowledge exists:

• FDA approval processes for new drug applications and what safety data manufacturers must provide
• Post-market surveillance requirements including adverse event reporting systems and periodic safety reviews
• Pharmaceutical company organizational structures and which departments handle safety signals and label changes
• Industry standards for warning label development and what constitutes adequate warnings under FDA regulations
• Knowledge of clinical trial data, safety databases, and internal communications about drug risks

When Ozempic received FDA approval in December 2017, Novo Nordisk submitted clinical trial data showing the drug’s efficacy for type 2 diabetes patients.

But pharmaceutical companies generating tens of billions in annual drug sales have ongoing obligations to monitor post-market safety data and update warnings about new risks as they emerge.

The question in failure-to-warn cases becomes: when did Novo Nordisk know or should have known about gastroparesis and NAION risks, and when should the company have updated warnings?

Attorneys with pharmaceutical industry knowledge know where to look for evidence of manufacturer knowledge regarding risks including gastroparesis, NAION, and potential thyroid cancer concerns.

Internal emails discussing adverse event patterns, safety committee meeting minutes, communications with FDA about label changes, and analyses of adverse event database reports all provide key evidence that the company knew about gastroparesis risks before adequately warning patients and doctors.

Obtaining and presenting this evidence requires attorneys familiar with pharmaceutical company operations and record-keeping practices.

If you developed serious gastrointestinal complications or vision loss after taking Ozempic and need attorneys who grasp the medical and scientific aspects of your injuries, you may be eligible for compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page for an instant case evaluation from attorneys who work with medical experts and know pharmaceutical industry practices in Ozempic litigation.

Our Ozempic attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing an Ozempic lawsuit.

With extensive experience in dangerous drug and pharmaceutical litigation cases, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and our partner law firms guide clients through the legal process while working with litigation leaders and medical experts to prove how Ozempic (semaglutide) injections caused you harm.

TruLaw focuses on securing compensation for medical bills, hospitalization costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages resulting from your Ozempic-related injuries including gastroparesis, intestinal blockages, gallbladder issues, and other severe gastrointestinal complications.

We understand the physical and emotional toll that Ozempic complications have on your life and provide the personalized guidance you need when seeking justice.

Meet the Lead Ozempic Attorney at TruLaw

Meet our lead Ozempic attorney:

• Jessica Paluch-Hoerman: As founder and managing attorney of TruLaw, Jessica brings her experience in pharmaceutical litigation and personal injury to her client-centered approach by prioritizing open communication and personalized attention with her clients. Through TruLaw and partner law firms, Jessica has helped collect over $3 billion on behalf of injured individuals across all 50 states through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

How much does hiring an Ozempic lawyer from TruLaw cost?

At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.

That’s why we operate on a contingency fee basis – with this approach, you only pay legal fees after you’ve been awarded compensation for your injuries.

If you or a loved one experienced severe gastrointestinal complications, gastroparesis, intestinal blockages, gallbladder problems, or other serious health issues after using Ozempic for diabetes management or weight loss, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an Ozempic lawsuit today.

Lawsuits involving Ozempic and other semaglutide weight loss drugs are being filed by individuals across the country who suffered severe gastrointestinal complications and other serious health problems.

TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the Ozempic lawsuit.

A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your Ozempic lawsuit include:

• If We Don’t Win, You Don’t Pay: The Ozempic lawyers at TruLaw and our partner firms operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning we only get paid if you win.
• Expertise: We have decades of experience handling dangerous drugs cases similar to the Ozempic lawsuit.
• Successful Track Record: TruLaw and our partner law firms have helped our clients recover billions of dollars in compensation through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

If you or a loved one developed gastroparesis, intestinal blockages, gallbladder problems, persistent vomiting, or other severe gastrointestinal complications after using Ozempic for diabetes management or weight loss, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine if you qualify to join others in filing an Ozempic lawsuit today.