We Fight for the Rights of Personal Injury and Accident Victims
Our goal is to make sure you get the justice you deserve and are fully compensated for your harms and losses
Massachusetts GLP-1 Vision Loss & NAION Lawsuit
If you live in Massachusetts and suffered significant or permanent vision loss after taking Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, Zepbound or another GLP-1 medication, you may have legal rights if you were diagnosed with non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).
Federal product liability lawsuits allege that certain GLP-1 medications can cause NAION and that manufacturers failed to adequately warn about the risk. Plaintiffs have also asserted design-defect and breach-of-warranty claims. Whether you can file a lawsuit depends on the medication you used, your diagnosis, when the vision loss occurred, your medical history, the warnings in place during your treatment and the scientific evidence connecting the medication to NAION.
Massachusetts Attorney Tracy Paulsen represents people who have been diagnosed with NAION after taking GLP-1 medications. She can help you understand your legal rights, whether you may have a claim, and your potential right to seek compensation for vision loss and its impact on your life.
Can I File a GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuit?
Potentially.
If you were taking a GLP-1 medication and subsequently suffered substantial vision loss and were diagnosed with NAION, your circumstances may warrant investigation for a product liability claim.
The federal litigation includes claims involving GLP-1 medications such as:
- Ozempic
- Wegovy
- Rybelsus
- Saxenda
- Trulicity
- Mounjaro
- Zepbound
Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus and Saxenda are manufactured by Novo Nordisk. Mounjaro, Zepbound and Trulicity are manufactured by Eli Lilly.
The central question is not simply whether your vision changed after taking one of these medications. Your medical records need to establish what happened to your vision, and the evidence must support the legal and scientific elements of your particular claim.
An investigation may examine:
- Whether an ophthalmologist or neuro-ophthalmologist diagnosed NAION
- Which GLP-1 medication you took
- How long you used the medication before your vision changed
- Whether the vision loss occurred suddenly
- Whether one or both eyes were affected
- How much vision you have permanently lost
- What warnings existed when the medication was prescribed
- Whether your prescribing healthcare provider was warned about NAION
- What other medical conditions or risk factors could have contributed
- What scientific and safety information was available concerning NAION
- Whether a different warning could have affected the prescribing or treatment decision
These questions help determine whether the evidence may support an individual product liability claim rather than simply showing that a medical problem occurred while a person happened to be taking a GLP-1 medication.
What Is NAION, and Why Can It Cause Permanent Vision Loss?
NAION stands for non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.
It is an optic nerve injury associated with insufficient blood flow to the optic nerve. Because the optic nerve carries visual information from the eye to the brain, damage to it can cause serious and permanent vision loss.
NAION often develops suddenly and without pain. A person may wake up and realize that part of the visual field in one eye is missing. Others may notice substantial blurring, darkness or an abrupt deterioration in their ability to see.
The consequences can extend well beyond an eye diagnosis.
A person who previously drove, worked, read, used a computer and moved independently may suddenly have difficulty performing ordinary tasks. Significant visual-field loss can affect depth perception, mobility, employment and independence.
The federal GLP-1 litigation is specifically concerned with allegations involving NAION, not every type of vision problem associated with diabetes, obesity or GLP-1 treatment.
That makes an accurate diagnosis important.
Diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, retinal detachment, retinal vascular disease and other conditions can also cause serious visual impairment. Someone considering a GLP-1 vision-loss claim should therefore determine what the ophthalmology or neuro-ophthalmology records actually identify as the cause of the vision loss.
What Do the Federal GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuits Claim?
The federal cases are product liability lawsuits.
Plaintiffs allege that GLP-1 medications caused them to develop NAION and have asserted claims that include:
- Failure to warn
- Design defect
- Breach of warranty
The federal cases share questions concerning the development, manufacture, testing, regulatory history, promotion and labeling of the medications, as well as their alleged capacity to cause NAION.
These remain allegations. The manufacturers dispute liability, and the existence of the federal litigation does not establish that a particular GLP-1 medication caused an individual patient’s NAION.
One particularly important issue is failure to warn.
Plaintiffs contend that manufacturers did not adequately warn prescribing healthcare providers and patients about the alleged risk of NAION and potentially permanent vision loss.
A failure-to-warn claim can require examining what the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known, what scientific information existed at the relevant time, what the FDA-approved labeling said, what information was communicated to healthcare professionals and whether an adequate warning would have affected the prescribing decision.
The federal cases also include design-defect and breach-of-warranty claims. The viability and requirements of those claims can depend on the applicable law and facts of an individual case.
For someone who has lost substantial vision, the important point is that the litigation is not based merely on the fact that an injury occurred. Plaintiffs still must establish the legal requirements of their claims and connect the medication to the injury through admissible evidence.
What Does Failure to Warn Mean in a GLP-1 Vision Loss Claim?
A serious side effect does not automatically make a pharmaceutical manufacturer legally responsible.
A failure-to-warn claim focuses on whether legally adequate warnings were provided about a medication’s risks.
In the GLP-1 vision-loss litigation, plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers failed to adequately warn about NAION.
The manufacturers may challenge those claims by disputing whether the available scientific evidence established a causal relationship, whether a different warning was legally required or permissible, whether the existing labeling was adequate, or whether a different warning would actually have changed the prescribing decision.
That makes timing important.
An attorney investigating a claim may need to determine when you started taking the medication, what the labeling said at that time, what scientific and regulatory information was available, what your healthcare provider knew about the potential risk and whether different information would have affected your treatment.
This is why the warning evidence and the scientific evidence are closely connected in these cases.
What Research Raised Concerns About Semaglutide and NAION?
Massachusetts has an important connection to the scientific research that brought broader attention to the possible relationship between semaglutide and NAION.
Researchers at Mass Eye and Ear in Boston published a 2024 study in JAMA Ophthalmology examining whether prescriptions for semaglutide were associated with an increased risk of NAION.
Semaglutide is the active ingredient in Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus.
The researchers studied patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who were overweight or obese. The study reported an association between semaglutide prescriptions and NAION.
But an association is not the same thing as proof that semaglutide caused an individual patient’s NAION.
The researchers identified limitations to the study, and later research has continued to investigate the potential association. That distinction is particularly important in litigation, where scientific evidence can be challenged and courts must determine what expert causation testimony is admissible.
The Massachusetts research therefore became an important part of a developing scientific question rather than the final answer to it.
What Has Later Research Found About Semaglutide and NAION?
Research did not stop with the initial Boston study.
Subsequent researchers have examined substantially larger populations and different datasets to determine whether an association between semaglutide and NAION appears elsewhere and, if so, how substantial that association may be.
A 2025 multicenter study published in JAMA Ophthalmology examined data involving millions of adults with type 2 diabetes. Researchers reported evidence of a modest increase in NAION risk associated with semaglutide, smaller than the association reported in the original study, and stated that further investigation was warranted.
Other research has produced different estimates depending on the population, comparison group and study methodology.
That evolving evidence is one reason causation remains an important issue in the federal litigation.
European regulators have also reviewed the evidence.
In 2025, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that NAION is a very rare side effect of semaglutide, meaning it may affect up to 1 in 10,000 people taking semaglutide. The agency reported that several large epidemiological studies suggested approximately a two-fold increased risk among adults with type 2 diabetes exposed to semaglutide compared with people not taking the medication.
European product information for Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus was updated accordingly.
That regulatory conclusion does not establish liability in an individual U.S. lawsuit. It is, however, part of the developing scientific and regulatory evidence concerning semaglutide and NAION.
The evidence should also not automatically be treated as identical for every GLP-1 medication. Semaglutide, tirzepatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide are different drugs, and evidence concerning a particular medication needs to be evaluated on its own terms.
What Is General Causation, and Why Does It Matter?
One of the major issues in the federal litigation is general causation.
General causation asks: Is the medication capable of causing NAION?
Specific causation asks a different question: Did the medication contribute to this particular person’s NAION?
The distinction matters.
Scientific evidence suggesting that a medication is capable of causing an injury does not automatically establish that it caused an individual patient’s injury. Conversely, the fact that someone has other recognized risk factors does not by itself answer whether a medication contributed to the condition.
The federal court overseeing the coordinated cases has made general causation one of the important early issues in the litigation.
For an individual Massachusetts claimant, specific causation can require careful consideration of the medication used, timing, medical history, ophthalmologic findings and other possible explanations for the injury.
What Has the FDA Said About GLP-1 Drugs and NAION?
The FDA identified NAION as a potential signal of a serious risk involving multiple GLP-1 medications through its adverse-event monitoring system.
The FDA’s list included Mounjaro, Ozempic, Rybelsus, Saxenda, Trulicity, Wegovy and Zepbound, as well as additional GLP-1 products.
The FDA stated that it was evaluating the need for regulatory action.
Identification of a potential safety signal is significant, but it should not be misinterpreted. It is not, by itself, an FDA determination that a medication caused a particular patient’s injury.
The FDA explains that its monitoring system is used to identify potential new safety information that warrants further evaluation.
European regulators have reached a more specific conclusion concerning semaglutide. The European Medicines Agency determined that NAION is a very rare side effect of semaglutide medicines Ozempic, Rybelsus and Wegovy.
These regulatory developments may be relevant to the scientific and warning issues being litigated, but an individual claim still requires evidence concerning the particular patient and medication.
What If I Was Taking Ozempic or Wegovy When I Lost My Vision?
Ozempic and Wegovy contain semaglutide, the medication that has received substantial attention in the published NAION research and European regulatory review.
If you suffered significant vision loss while taking Ozempic or Wegovy, one of the first questions is your actual diagnosis.
Look at whether your ophthalmology records identify NAION – non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.
Do not assume that every serious eye injury is NAION.
If you were diagnosed with NAION, the next step is reconstructing the medication and medical timeline.
When did you start Ozempic or Wegovy? What dose were you taking? Were there dose increases? When did the first visual symptoms occur? When did you seek treatment? What did your ophthalmologist observe? What other medical conditions or risk factors were present?
Those facts may become important to determining whether the evidence supports a potential claim.
What If I Was Taking Mounjaro or Zepbound?
Mounjaro and Zepbound contain tirzepatide, rather than semaglutide.
Both medications are among the products involved in the current federal NAION litigation.
However, the scientific evidence should not automatically be treated as identical across every GLP-1 medication.
Research concerning semaglutide does not, by itself, establish causation for tirzepatide. An investigation involving Mounjaro or Zepbound should consider the evidence concerning the specific medication as well as the patient’s medical history, diagnosis and timing.
If you used Mounjaro or Zepbound and were diagnosed with NAION, preserve your prescription, pharmacy and ophthalmology records so the particular medication history can be evaluated.
What Medical Evidence Matters in a GLP-1 Vision Loss Claim?
For someone who has lost substantial vision, medical documentation can become one of the most important parts of the claim.
Relevant evidence may include:
- Ophthalmology records
- Neuro-ophthalmology records
- Visual-field testing
- Optical coherence tomography and other optic nerve imaging
- Emergency or hospital records
- Records documenting the initial NAION diagnosis
- Earlier eye examinations showing vision before the injury
- Primary-care and endocrinology records
- GLP-1 prescription records
- Pharmacy dispensing records
- Records showing dosage changes
- Diabetes and blood-pressure records
- Sleep apnea history and treatment records
- Records concerning other potential NAION risk factors
Earlier eye examinations may be particularly useful because they can document visual function before the NAION event.
Records from the healthcare provider who prescribed the GLP-1 medication may also matter.
In a failure-to-warn claim, the investigation may include what information was available to the prescribing provider and whether a different warning would have affected the decision to prescribe the medication.
I Have Other NAION Risk Factors. Can I Still Have a Claim?
Potentially.
NAION has recognized risk factors. Depending on the individual, these may include diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea and other vascular or anatomical factors.
Those issues should not be hidden or minimized. They are part of the causation analysis.
Drug manufacturers may contend that a person’s NAION resulted from underlying health conditions rather than the medication.
But the existence of another risk factor does not, by itself, resolve causation.
This issue can be particularly important in GLP-1 litigation because some patients taking these medications already have diabetes, obesity or cardiovascular risk factors.
An appropriate investigation should examine the complete medical picture: baseline health, medication exposure, timing, ophthalmologic findings, other potential causes and the scientific evidence concerning the specific drug.
Lost Significant Vision After Taking a GLP-1 Medication?
Contact Attorney Tracy Paulsen for a Free Case Review.
What Is the Federal GLP-1 Vision Loss Litigation?
People around the country have filed individual product liability lawsuits alleging that certain GLP-1 medications caused NAION and permanent vision loss.
Because the federal cases share important scientific, regulatory and factual questions, they have been consolidated in federal court in Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
This type of proceeding is called multidistrict litigation, or an MDL.
It is not a class action.
People pursuing claims generally retain individual lawsuits while common issues are addressed together.
The federal cases include failure-to-warn, design-defect and breach-of-warranty claims. Common questions include the medications’ alleged capacity to cause NAION, their development and testing, regulatory history, labeling and warnings.
For someone who has suffered permanent vision loss, the individual evidence still matters. Your medication, diagnosis, medical history, timing and damages remain specific to you even though broader scientific and legal issues are being coordinated in federal court.
What Is the Federal Court Deciding About GLP-1 Drugs and Vision Loss?
The federal litigation remains active, and important questions have not yet been finally decided.
The court has focused early proceedings on major issues that could affect many cases, particularly:
General causation: whether the medications are capable of causing NAION.
Federal preemption and warning adequacy: issues concerning the manufacturers’ warnings and the interaction between product liability claims and federal drug regulation.
The court also held a Science Day addressing the medications, regulatory and labeling history, NAION, and relevant scientific and medical literature.
These proceedings are important because plaintiffs still must establish the scientific and legal foundation for their claims.
The existence of coordinated federal litigation does not mean the court has already determined that GLP-1 medications cause NAION, that a manufacturer is liable, or that a particular claimant will receive compensation.
Can I File a GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuit If I Live in Massachusetts?
Potentially.
A Massachusetts resident with a qualifying claim may be able to file an individual product liability lawsuit that becomes part of the coordinated federal litigation.
Whether you have a potential claim requires an individual evaluation of your diagnosis, medication history, timing, medical evidence and applicable filing deadline.
Simply having taken Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, Zepbound or another GLP-1 medication does not establish a claim.
The injury and evidence matter.
How Has Losing Vision Changed Your Life?
For someone who has suffered permanent vision loss, the consequences can extend far beyond the medical appointments immediately following the diagnosis.
- Can you still drive?
- Can you safely travel to work?
- Can you read normally?
- Has using a computer become difficult?
- Has your employment changed?
- Do you need assistance navigating unfamiliar places?
- Have you lost depth perception or peripheral vision?
- Do you need help with household responsibilities that you previously performed independently?
- Has the injury affected hobbies, exercise, childcare or other ordinary activities?
- Those consequences should be documented.
If liability and causation can be established, a product liability claim may seek compensation for legally recoverable losses, potentially including medical expenses, lost earnings, diminished future earning capacity, pain and suffering, disability and other consequences supported by the evidence.
The value of an individual claim cannot be determined from the diagnosis alone. The degree and permanence of the visual impairment and its effect on the person’s life can be important.
What Should I Do If I Believe I Have a GLP-1 Vision Loss Claim?
If you have suffered significant vision loss and believe a GLP-1 medication may be involved, begin by preserving information that may help establish what happened.
Keep or obtain:
- The name of the GLP-1 medication
- Prescription and pharmacy records
- Approximate start and stop dates
- Dosage information and dose changes
- Names of prescribing healthcare providers
- Ophthalmology records
- Neuro-ophthalmology records
- Visual-field testing and optic nerve imaging
- Records showing when your vision changed
- Earlier eye examinations, when available
- Medication packaging or prescription information still in your possession
It may also help to write down when you first noticed the visual change and what occurred in the days surrounding your diagnosis while those details are still clear.
Do not change or discontinue a prescribed medication solely because you are considering a legal claim. Medication decisions should be discussed with your treating healthcare professional.
An attorney can then investigate the medical chronology, scientific evidence, potential failure-to-warn or other product liability claims, and applicable filing requirements.
Is There a Deadline for Filing a Massachusetts GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuit?
Yes. Product liability claims are subject to filing deadlines.
The applicable deadline can depend on the claims being asserted, the law that applies, when the injury occurred and potentially when the connection between the injury and medication became known or reasonably discoverable.
The existence of federal multidistrict litigation does not eliminate these individual deadline questions.
Do not assume that you can wait until the federal litigation is resolved before investigating your legal rights.
The potential filing deadline should be evaluated based on the facts of your individual claim.
Why Choose Attorney Tracy Paulsen and Rightful Legal for a GLP-1 Vision Loss Claim?
Attorney Tracy Paulsen is the founder of Rightful Legal, P.C. and has practiced in Massachusetts since 2009. Her work includes product liability, mass tort litigation and serious civil injury claims.
Her background is particularly relevant to cases involving complicated medical and scientific evidence. Tracy studied Environmental Science and Anthropology at the University of Virginia and received a Jurisprudence Award for Environmental Law while attending Suffolk University Law School.
GLP-1 vision-loss litigation can involve product liability law, medicine, epidemiology, regulatory evidence and individual causation. These cases may also involve large pharmaceutical defendants with substantial legal and scientific resources.
Tracy’s background includes experience in matters involving insurers and large corporate interests. Rightful Legal’s approach emphasizes careful case development, medical documentation, scientific and factual investigation, and litigation readiness.
Rightful Legal is a small firm built around direct attorney involvement. Clients work directly with Attorney Paulsen rather than having their matter primarily handled through a high-volume case-management system.
Massachusetts GLP-1 Vision Loss Lawsuit FAQ
Can I file an Ozempic vision loss lawsuit?
Potentially. If you took Ozempic and were subsequently diagnosed with NAION, your circumstances may warrant investigation. A potential lawsuit requires more than showing that vision loss occurred after using the medication. Diagnosis, timing, scientific evidence, warnings and individual causation all matter.
What diagnosis is involved in the GLP-1 vision-loss lawsuits?
The current federal litigation focuses on non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION. If you suffered significant vision loss but do not know your diagnosis, your ophthalmology records may help determine whether NAION was identified.
Can NAION cause permanent vision loss?
Yes. NAION can cause significant and permanent loss of vision. The degree and pattern of impairment can vary. An ophthalmologist or neuro-ophthalmologist can determine the nature and extent of an individual patient’s injury.
Can I have a claim if only one eye was affected?
Potentially. A claim does not necessarily require vision loss in both eyes. Significant permanent visual-field loss in one eye can have serious consequences. Whether the facts support a legal claim depends on the medical and legal evidence.
What if I had diabetes before developing NAION?
Diabetes can be relevant to NAION risk and causation, but having diabetes does not by itself determine whether a GLP-1 medication contributed to an individual’s injury. The complete medical history, medication exposure, timing and scientific evidence should be evaluated.
What if my doctor never told me a GLP-1 medication could cause NAION?
That information may be relevant to a failure-to-warn claim, but it does not automatically establish manufacturer liability. The investigation may include the manufacturer’s labeling, information provided to healthcare professionals, available scientific evidence and whether a different warning would have affected the prescribing decision.
Are Mounjaro and Zepbound included in the federal vision-loss litigation?
Yes. Mounjaro and Zepbound are among the GLP-1 medications involved in the coordinated federal NAION litigation. However, the scientific evidence concerning a particular medication still needs to be evaluated individually.
Are these only failure-to-warn claims?
No. Plaintiffs in the federal litigation have asserted product liability claims that include failure to warn, design defect and breach of warranty. Warning adequacy is currently an important issue in the federal proceedings, but it is not the only legal theory asserted.
Is the GLP-1 vision-loss litigation a class action?
No. The cases have been consolidated through multidistrict litigation for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs generally maintain individual claims rather than becoming members of a single class action.
Has there been a GLP-1 vision-loss settlement?
The federal litigation remains active. The existence of coordinated litigation does not mean a settlement has been reached or that any individual claimant will receive compensation.
What records should I keep if I believe I have a GLP-1 vision-loss claim?
Preserve prescription and pharmacy records, medication information, ophthalmology and neuro-ophthalmology records, visual-field testing, optic nerve imaging and records documenting when the vision loss began. An attorney can determine what additional evidence may be relevant to investigating the claim.
Have Questions About Significant Vision Loss After Taking a GLP-1 Medication?
Contact Attorney Tracy Paulsen for a Free Case Review.
If you live in Massachusetts and were diagnosed with NAION or suffered significant permanent vision loss after taking a GLP-1 medication, Attorney Tracy Paulsen can review your circumstances, explain your legal rights and discuss whether you may have a claim and a potential right to seek compensation.
