Ozempic (GLP-1) Lawsuit — Free Case Review
Sudden Vision Loss Deserves Answers
If NAION was diagnosed during or after brand-name GLP-1 use and some vision loss is permanent, you may qualify — spouses and family welcome to call.
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.
Case Management Order No. 12, entered July 2, 2026, is the order that started the NAION MDL’s decisive fight: Judge Marston granted the defendants’ request for early discovery and motion practice on the cross-cutting issues of general causation and preemption/warning adequacy. The full order — and the MDL’s founding order — are hosted below.
The documents (hosted here, from the court record):
- Case Management Order No. 12 (Cross-Cutting Issues) — Doc. 120, July 2, 2026 (PDF, 8 pages)
- Case Management Order No. 1 — Doc. 2, Dec. 23, 2025 (PDF, 5 pages)
Both are public records of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, In re: GLP-1 RAs Non-Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3163, obtained via CourtListener/RECAP.
What CMO 12 orders — and why it matters
MDL 3163 consolidates claims that GLP-1 receptor agonists — sold as Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Saxenda, Trulicity, Mounjaro, and Zepbound — caused non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a condition the order itself describes as resulting in “sudden, permanent vision loss.” In CMO 12, after letter briefing and a June 23, 2026 status conference, the Court granted the defendants’ request for early, targeted discovery and motion practice on two cross-cutting issues: general causation, and preemption/warning adequacy — with the parties ordered to propose a schedule by July 13, 2026, along with a plan for exchanging plaintiff fact sheets and the medical records that confirm proof of use and proof of diagnosis.
Why that matters: it is the same structural playbook that produced the stomach-injury MDL’s defining moments — the gastric-emptying-study requirement and the September 2026 Rule 702 hearing. Rather than litigating thousands of cases individually, the court front-loads the questions every case shares: can these drugs cause NAION at all, and do federal labeling rules preempt the warning claims? The answers will shape every NAION case in the MDL. One detail from the order’s first footnote worth knowing: earlier in 2026, Novo Nordisk stopped marketing its semaglutide pill under the Rybelsus name and began selling it as the pill form of Ozempic or Wegovy, depending on dosage — relevant to product identification for anyone tracing which medication they actually took.
Where the NAION MDL stands
Created December 15, 2025 over plaintiffs’ opposition, MDL 3163 sits before the same judge as the stomach-injury MDL and has grown from roughly 20 cases at creation to 216 by the September 2026 JPML count. CMO 1 (hosted above) is its founding governance order; a streamlined public docket (01-md-3163) carries the master pleadings and major rulings. There are no dismissals, no expert rulings, and no settlements in this MDL — CMO 12 is the starting gun for the phase that will produce them. On August 27, 2026 the court supplied the calendar: MDL 3163’s Case Management Order No. 14 set a full pretrial schedule through August 2027, superseding CMO 12’s timing while leaving its cross-cutting framing intact, with the master complaint due October 28, 2026 and Rule 702 and summary judgment motions due July 2, 2027. The tracker follows each step, and our U.S.-vs-EU label ledger tracks the regulatory backdrop the warning-adequacy fight will draw on.
Where the pleadings stand — and how this MDL differs from the stomach-injury track
One structural difference is easy to miss: NAION claims are not pleaded in the stomach-injury MDL’s master complaint. The MDL 3094 short form complaint’s twelve-item injury list runs from gastroparesis through aspiration and death — vision loss is not on it — and its sixteen counts all serve the gastrointestinal-injury theory. MDL 3163 runs its own pleading track before the same judge, and it has not yet been through the fights that shaped its older sibling: no master complaint has been tested by a motion to dismiss, no counts have been trimmed or rebuilt, and no CMO 27-style short-form regime has been ordered here yet. That is not a gap so much as a timeline — MDL 3094 needed roughly eighteen months to get from creation to a ruled-on master pleading.
For readers trying to understand what that machinery looks like when it matures, the stomach-injury track is the preview, and CMO 12’s cross-cutting schedule is this MDL beginning to build the same architecture — general causation and preemption first, exactly the issues that dominated MDL 3094’s motion-to-dismiss opinion and now its Rule 702 fight. Our dissection of the MDL 3094 master complaint shows count by count how a master pleading survives a dismissal motion and what a preemption ruling can remove (there, both design-defect counts); our short-form-complaint walkthrough shows how individual cases adopt a master pleading by checkbox once that system exists. When MDL 3163 reaches those milestones — a master complaint, a dismissal ruling, a short-form regime — this page and the tracker will cover them the same way: from the documents, with the defense position included.
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
Does CMO 12 decide whether GLP-1 drugs cause NAION?
No. It orders the process that will produce that fight — discovery and motions on general causation. No court has ruled on causation in this MDL, in either direction.
What are “cross-cutting issues”?
Questions common to every case in the MDL — here, whether the drugs can cause NAION at all (general causation) and whether federal drug-labeling law preempts the warning claims. Deciding them once avoids relitigating them in hundreds of individual cases.
What should NAION claimants take from the fact-sheet requirement?
That proof of use and proof of diagnosis are the currency of this litigation. Medical records establishing which medication was taken, and an actual NAION diagnosis, are what the court has ordered the parties to systematize — and they are what any case review starts with.
Sources
- Case Management Order No. 12 (Cross-Cutting Issues), Doc. 120, MDL No. 3163 (E.D. Pa. July 2, 2026)
- Case Management Order No. 1, Doc. 2, MDL No. 3163 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2025)
- JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3163 (Dec. 15, 2025); JPML Pending MDL Statistics (Sept. 2026)
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, the gastric-emptying-study order (Doc. 468), the lawsuit tracker, and the September 2026 expert hearing.