“What About the Other Eye?” — The Question Everyone Asks After NAION

Marin & MurphySuper Lawyers® 2014–2024(888) 348-2735

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?

Start your free case reviewTell us anyway

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.

(888) 348-2735

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.

This is the first question almost everyone asks after a NAION diagnosis, and it deserves a straight, calm answer. According to the American Academy of Ophthalmology’s clinical guidance, the risk of NAION occurring in the second eye is approximately 15% over five years. That means the substantial majority of people who have NAION in one eye do not go on to have it in the other. If you have been told a much higher number, it is worth asking where that figure came from.

Reports submitted to FDA are not verified and do not establish causation; they are voluntary, can duplicate one another, and rise and fall with prescribing volume and news coverage.

The number, and what it actually means

The figure usually cited in ophthalmology guidance for second-eye involvement is about 15% at five years. It is worth sitting with that for a moment, because fear tends to round it up. Framed the other way, roughly five out of six people do not experience it in the fellow eye within that period.

It is not zero, and we are not going to pretend it is. But it is a minority outcome, not the default, and it is not something happening on a countdown. There is no evidence that it is more likely tomorrow than next year.

Why you may have heard a frightening number

People in NAION communities frequently report being told the chance is 30–40%. Others are told “you should be one and done.” Both get repeated, and the frightening version travels further — which is how a rare outcome starts to feel inevitable.

Estimates do vary between studies, and individual risk depends on factors specific to each person, including optic-disc anatomy and vascular health. That is precisely why a general figure from a clinical source is more useful than a remembered number from a waiting room, and why the person best placed to tell you about your risk is the treating ophthalmologist or neuro-ophthalmologist.

What is known about the eye already affected

Most people find some stability, and some find modest improvement. Roughly 70% of affected eyes stay about where they settle, about 20% improve somewhat, and about 10% get worse. Recovery of the visual field that was lost is generally limited, and there is currently no treatment shown to improve the outcome of acute NAION — which is why so many people are told nothing can be done for the eye itself.

People also report real practical adaptation over months: the brain adjusts to a changed field of vision, and many describe things becoming easier to manage than they were at first, even when the measured vision has not changed. Low-vision rehabilitation and occupational-therapy services exist for exactly this, and are worth asking about.

The questions worth asking your own doctor

We are a law firm, not a medical practice, and this page will not tell you what to do about your health. But families often say they left the appointment without knowing what to ask. These come up repeatedly:

• What did my optic disc anatomy look like — is a “crowded disc” part of my picture?
• Which of my other conditions — blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, sleep apnea — are worth attention here, and who should manage them?
• Should the timing of any of my medications be reviewed?
• How often should the other eye be checked, and what changes should prompt an urgent call rather than an appointment?
• Is a referral to a neuro-ophthalmologist or to low-vision services appropriate?

About the medication itself

When European regulators concluded in June 2025 that NAION is a very rare side effect of semaglutide, they also advised that patients experiencing sudden vision changes should contact a doctor promptly, and that semaglutide treatment should be stopped if NAION is confirmed.

That is a regulator’s recommendation, and we mention it because people are often unaware it exists. It is not instruction from us. Whether to continue, change, or stop any prescription is a decision for you and your physician, weighing what the medication is doing for your diabetes or your weight against everything else. Nobody should stop a prescribed medicine because of something they read on a law firm’s website.

If you are the spouse or the adult child

You may be carrying more of this fear than the patient is, and doing it quietly so as not to add to theirs. That is extremely common and it is worth naming.

Two things tend to help: an accurate number instead of an imagined one, and knowing who to call if something changes. Both are above. Whatever you decide about the legal side, you can take the reassurance and leave the rest.

Who may qualify today

• Use of brand-name Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Trulicity, Mounjaro, or Zepbound — not compounded or generic versions.
• An actual NAION diagnosis from a physician.
• Diagnosed while taking the medication or after stopping it.
• Some degree of permanent vision impairment.
• Not already represented by another lawyer for this issue.
• No age limit, no hospital requirement, and no diagnosis-date cutoff on this track.
• If NAION has affected both eyes, that is recorded as part of the history — the criteria are the same.

You are not suing the doctors

Any claim here is against the companies that made and labeled the medication — Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. It is not against the ophthalmologist, the neuro-ophthalmologist, or the prescriber. Their records are what supports a claim, and nothing about one puts your care at risk.

Common questions

Related vision-loss topics: “eye stroke” (NAION), sudden vision loss in one eye, NAION vision-loss claims, and the US vs. EU warning-label gap.