Ozempic (GLP-1) Lawsuit — Free Case Review
The Test the Stomach-Injury Court Now Requires
If you had a gastric emptying study — or aren't sure what your testing was — find out in minutes where you stand.
No Ozempic or other GLP-1 lawsuit has been settled, and no court or jury has found that these medications caused anyone's injury — the litigation is ongoing, with major expert-evidence rulings still ahead. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their own medical records and the law of their state.
Did this happen to you — or someone you love?
Answered 24/7 · Free & confidential · No fee unless there is a recovery. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney's fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.
Partners
Matthew T. Marin & Stefanie A. Murphy
Super Lawyers® honorees · American Association for Justice members
Ozempic inquiries get a personal review — and an honest answer either way, free and without obligation.
No Ozempic or other GLP-1 lawsuit has been settled, and no court or jury has found that these medications caused anyone's injury — the litigation is ongoing, with major expert-evidence rulings still ahead. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their own medical records and the law of their state. Do not stop, start, or change any prescribed medication because of anything on this page. Those decisions belong with your prescriber. Attorney Advertising.
On August 15, 2025, Judge Karen Spencer Marston issued the single most consequential evidence ruling in MDL 3094 to date: every plaintiff claiming gastroparesis must show a diagnosis “based on a properly performed gastric emptying study (scintigraphy, breath test, or WMC).” The order, the 78-page memorandum behind it, and the same-day dismissal rulings are all hosted below.
The documents (hosted here, from the court record):
- Order on Cross-Cutting Issue No. 1 — Doc. 468, Aug. 15, 2025 (PDF, 2 pages)
- Memorandum on Cross-Cutting Issue No. 1 — Doc. 467 (PDF, 78 pages)
- Order on Motions to Dismiss the Master Complaint — Doc. 466 (PDF, 3 pages)
- Memorandum on Motions to Dismiss — Doc. 465 (PDF, 79 pages)
All four are public records of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, MDL No. 3094, obtained via CourtListener/RECAP.
What Doc. 468 actually holds
The order resolved “Cross-Cutting Issue No. 1” — whether gastroparesis can reliably be diagnosed without contemporaneous objective testing. After an evidentiary hearing in May 2025 and argument in July, the Court excluded the opinions of plaintiffs’ diagnostic experts Drs. Raines and Siegel, declined to exclude the defense expert Dr. Nguyen, and entered the operative sentence verbatim:
“Any Plaintiff claiming to suffer (or have suffered) from gastroparesis, must show that their diagnosis is based on a properly performed gastric emptying study (scintigraphy, breath test, or WMC).”
The three accepted test types are gastric emptying scintigraphy (the standard nuclear-medicine study), the stable-isotope breath test, and the wireless motility capsule (WMC). What counts as “properly performed” — protocol length, meal standardization, timing — is exactly the kind of detail the 78-page memorandum works through, and it is why our plain-English explainer on the gastric emptying study exists. The practical effect for claimants is blunt: a gastroparesis diagnosis made on symptoms alone, without one of these objective studies, does not currently satisfy the MDL’s evidence requirement.
The same-day dismissal rulings (Docs. 465–466)
The same afternoon, the Court ruled on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the master complaint: granted in part and denied in part, with design-defect and several other theories dismissed with leave to amend. That ruling is why the litigation now proceeds primarily on failure-to-warn theories, and why plaintiffs filed the Amended Master Long Form Complaint two weeks later. Reading Doc. 466 (three pages) alongside Doc. 468 gives the clearest picture of how August 15, 2025 reshaped the MDL — narrowing both the legal theories and the proof that qualifies.
How the same-day dismissal rulings map onto the complaint’s counts
Because Docs. 465–466 reshaped the master complaint itself, the cleanest way to read them is against the counts as they exist in the amended pleading today — each linked to our count-by-count dissection, which pairs every count with the defense argument from the actual briefing and the court’s answer. The failure-to-warn counts were never part of the motion at all — the defendants moved against twelve of the original seventeen counts but left the warn claims untouched, choosing to fight them on evidence rather than pleading. That choice is what connects the two August 15 rulings: Doc. 468’s gastric-emptying-study requirement is the evidence rule the surviving warn claims’ gastroparesis allegations must satisfy, and the September 2026 Rule 702 hearing is the same strategy at full scale.
Of the counts that were challenged: express warranty survived — the court declined to hold that “safe and effective” statements are mere opinion incapable of creating a warranty — as did implied warranty and negligent undertaking, the direct-to-consumer-advertising theory the defendants attacked under the learned-intermediary doctrine. The fraud and misrepresentation counts split: claims centered on the FDA-approved labels and on weight-loss marketing to consumers survived; claims resting on unidentified communications to physicians did not, and were repleaded. The consumer-protection and general-negligence counts were dismissed with leave and rebuilt with the statute-by-statute and theory-by-theory specificity the court demanded — a requirement now wired into every individual short form complaint’s ¶¶ 20–21, with a strike warning quoting this very memorandum. A new state product-liability-act count was added in the amendment. And both design-defect counts were dismissed as preempted by federal law and dropped from the amended pleading — the single ruling most responsible for this litigation’s current shape as a warnings case. The court also dismissed the standalone medical-monitoring remedy as indistinguishable, as pleaded, from ordinary future medical expenses. The defendants did not renew their motion against the amended complaint; the pleadings phase closed here, and the evidence phase these documents opened runs next.
Free, confidential case review. Marin & Murphy is currently accepting Ozempic (GLP-1) stomach-injury and NAION vision-loss cases. No fee unless there is a recovery. Marin & Murphy is licensed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and South Carolina; matters elsewhere may be referred to lawyers licensed in your state.
Start your free case review or call (888) 348-2735 — answered 24/7.
See if you qualify
A few quick questions about which GLP-1 medication you took, your diagnosis and testing, and your treatment. This is the initial intake screening, not a full case review. Most people finish in about two minutes.
- 🔒 Confidential
- No obligation
- ⏱ ~2 minutes
Marin & Murphy Law Firm · Free & confidential · Stop messages anytime
Common questions
I was diagnosed with gastroparesis but never had a gastric emptying study. Is my claim over?
Not necessarily — but the diagnosis as it stands does not meet the MDL’s current requirement. Whether testing can still be obtained, and whether it would relate back to your time on the medication, is a case-specific medical and legal question worth an actual review rather than a guess.
Does this order apply to NAION vision-loss claims?
No. Doc. 468 governs gastroparesis claims in MDL 3094. The NAION litigation (MDL 3163) has its own developing evidence track — see CMO 12.
Did this ruling end anyone’s case?
The order set an evidence requirement; it did not itself dismiss cases. How it is enforced against individual claims — and what happens to claims that cannot meet it — continues to play out on the docket, which our tracker follows.
Sources
- Order & Memorandum, Cross-Cutting Issue No. 1, Doc. Nos. 467–468, MDL No. 3094 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2025)
- Memorandum & Order, Motions to Dismiss, Doc. Nos. 465–466, MDL No. 3094 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2025)
No Ozempic or other GLP-1 lawsuit has been settled, and no court or jury has found that these medications caused anyone’s injury — the litigation is ongoing, with major expert-evidence rulings still ahead. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their own medical records and the law of their state.
Do not stop, start, or change any prescribed medication because of anything on this page. Those decisions belong with your prescriber.
Attorney Advertising.
This page is attorney advertising and is for informational purposes only; it is not legal or medical advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The filings: the master complaint, CMO 12 (NAION MDL), the lawsuit tracker, and the September 2026 expert hearing.