Stomach Paralysis Lawsuit Filed Over Side Effects of Ozempic, Trulicity, Rybelsus

Manufacturers of the GLP-1 drugs downplayed the potential risks of gastroparesis and similar side effects to protect profits, lawsuit claims.

A North Carolina woman has filed a product liability lawsuit over stomach paralysis allegedly caused by side effects of several diabetes drugs, indicating that maufacturers downplayed the risk users face of developing a condition known as gastroparesis.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Samantha Hill in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 25, naming Novo Nordisk, the makers of Ozempic and Rybelsus, and Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Trulicity, as defendants.

All three drugs belong to a class of medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which are widely used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and for weight loss. Over the last couple years, growing evidence has linked GLP-1 drugs to gastrointestinal problems like gastroparesis, or stomach paralysis, intestinal blockages and ileus.

This has led to a growing number of Ozempic stomach paralysis lawsuits and claims over other GLP-1 drugs being filed over the last year. Like Hill’s complaint, each raises nearly identical allegations that drug makers withheld crucial information from consumers and the medical community in order to increase and sustain profits.

According to her lawsuit, Hill was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and was prescribed Ozempic (semaglutide) from September 2021 to March 2023. She was also prescribed Rybelsus, which also uses semaglutide as the active ingredient, in December 2022, and Trulicity (dulaglutide) from November 2021 to February 2022.

The lawsuit indicates Hill’s use of the drugs led to the development of gastroparesis, resulting in nausea, severe vomiting and emergency hospital treatment.

“Defendants acknowledge that gastrointestinal events are well known side effects of the GLP-1RA class of drugs,” Hill’s lawsuit states. “However, Defendants have downplayed the severity of the gastrointestinal events caused by their GLP-1RAs, never, for example, warning of the risk of gastroparesis (paralyzed stomach) and its sequelae.”

She presents claims of negligent failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of North Carolina consumer protection and trade practices laws. Hill seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

March 2025 GLP-1 Lawsuits Update

Hill’s complaint joins more than 1,300 other GLP-1 lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide, and will be centralized with similar claims in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where all GLP-1 claims are consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) under U.S. District Judge Karen Marston.

An important evidentiary hearing is scheduled for May 14, 2025, to assess the reliability of the plaintiffs’ expert testimony on general causation, regarding the link between Ozempic and gastrointestinal injuries. The litigation depends on whether the plaintiffs’ experts can present sound scientific evidence linking GLP-1 drugs to the alleged injuries to move forward. If the evidence fails to meet the required legal standard, the lawsuits could be dismissed.

However, that is only one of several such “cross-cutting” issues Judge Marston has identified, which also include determining whether plaintiffs will be required to provide specific gastroparesis diagnostic testing to establish that they have suffered that specific stomach injury, and whether the lawsuits are preempted by federal law.

Following the resolution of those issues, Judge Marston is expected to direct the parties to select a series of representative GLP-1 lawsuits for early bellwether test trials, to help gauge how juries will respond to evidence and expert testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

While the outcomes of such early test trials are not binding on other claims, they could help potentially facilitate an Ozempic settlement agreement that would avoid the need for each individual case to be set for trial in the future.