Zepbound and Saxenda Injury Claims

Zepbound (tirzepatide) and Saxenda (liraglutide) are part of a new wave of GLP-1 receptor agonists that were first introduced to help with diabetes management but quickly became widely prescribed for weight loss. These drugs have reshaped treatment plans for obesity in the U.S., with prescriptions climbing sharply since approval. Alongside their popularity, however, lawsuits have emerged alleging that patients developed catastrophic injuries such as gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, ileus, and severe gallbladder disease.

These aren’t the routine side effects patients were warned about. Instead, they are serious conditions that often lead to hospitalization, surgery, or permanent lifestyle changes.

Claims against Novo Nordisk (Saxenda) and Eli Lilly (Zepbound) are now testing whether warnings about gastrointestinal harm were timely, accurate, and sufficient. The foundation of these cases lies in proving liability, establishing what a manufacturer knew and when they disclosed it is central to holding them accountable.

Drug Histories and FDA Updates

Every GLP-1 drug that ends up in litigation has two stories: the approval pathway that opened the door for widespread use, and the post-market record of adverse events that exposed patients to risks they were never fully warned about. Zepbound and Saxenda are no different, and their regulatory history now plays a central role in lawsuits.

• Zepbound (tirzepatide): Approved by the FDA in 2023 for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight plus related health conditions, Zepbound was marketed as a breakthrough option after clinical trials showed significant weight reduction. The FDA later expanded approval to include risk reduction for serious cardiovascular events in obese adults, further broadening its patient pool.
• Saxenda (liraglutide): First approved in 2014 for weight management, Saxenda has long carried a boxed warning about thyroid C-cell tumors, similar to other drugs in its class. Litigation against Novo Nordisk centers less on thyroid risk and more on whether the company did enough to warn about gallbladder disease and severe gastrointestinal complications.
• Class-wide signals: While nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea have always been listed, adverse-event reports accumulated over time pointing to more severe injuries like gastroparesis and ileus. Plaintiffs now argue these signals should have triggered stronger warnings years earlier.
• Regulatory oversight: The FDA has also raised concerns about compounded or unapproved GLP-1 products sold for weight loss outside approved channels.
• Media and safety scrutiny: Investigations such as KATU’s Spotlight report have amplified concerns that the popularity of GLP-1 drugs may have outpaced proper risk disclosure, leaving patients unaware of just how serious the complications can be.

This history matters in court. A failure-to-warn claim is only as strong as the timeline of what the manufacturer knew versus what it told patients and doctors. If adverse-event reports and safety concerns were mounting but the label stayed vague, plaintiffs gained powerful leverage. At Boesen Law, we build cases around these regulatory gaps because they often determine whether victims are compensated fairly for the damage done.

For answers to your questions, call:
(303) 999-9999

Qualifying Injuries Reported in Zepbound and Saxenda Lawsuits

The injuries driving this litigation are life-altering complications that often leave patients with permanent medical needs. The most frequently reported harms include:

• Gastroparesis (stomach paralysis): Intractable nausea and vomiting leading to dehydration, malnutrition, and hospital admissions.
• Intestinal blockage or ileus: Confirmed through CT scans or surgical exploration, often requiring urgent operations.
• Gallbladder disease: Gallstones or cholecystitis resulting in gallbladder removal and ongoing digestive dysfunction.
• Pancreatitis: Marked by abdominal pain, elevated lipase or amylase, and prolonged hospitalization.

Who May Qualify to File

Not every adverse reaction becomes a lawsuit. Courts are looking at the most severe and well-documented cases, the ones where these drugs left patients with catastrophic injuries and permanent health consequences. Potential plaintiffs often include:

• Adults prescribed Zepbound or Saxenda who later received a confirmed diagnosis of gastroparesis, intestinal blockage, ileus, gallbladder disease, or pancreatitis, supported by hospital records, imaging studies, or surgical notes
• Patients whose complications required emergency surgery, ICU admission, or prolonged hospitalization for dehydration, nutritional support, or bile duct obstruction
• Individuals who now live with long-term limitations, such as ongoing digestive dysfunction, dependence on feeding tubes, or chronic abdominal pain that prevents them from working or maintaining their quality of life

Eligibility in these cases depends on strong diagnostic proof. That is why an early legal review is so important. Our attorneys know how to match prescription histories with adverse-event records and build a claim that insurers and courts cannot dismiss as speculation.

Legal Challenges in Zepbound and Saxenda Cases

Drug manufacturers will argue that gastrointestinal complications are “known side effects” rather than proof of a design defect or labeling failure. Defense teams frequently raise preemption arguments, claiming FDA approval of the label shields them from liability. They also challenge causation, suggesting that underlying diabetes, diet, or other medications explain the injuries instead.

Schedule a Free Consultation With a Dangerous Drug Attorney

Victims may be entitled to compensation for hospital bills, surgeries, lost income, and the personal cost of living with a permanent injury. At Boesen Law, we review medical histories, identify qualifying injuries, and pursue cases in mass tort litigation and trial courts when necessary. We provide free consultations and handle cases on a contingency fee basis, which means clients do not pay unless we recover compensation.

If you believe your injury is linked to Zepbound or Saxenda, contact us to discuss your legal options.

Frequently Asked Questions About Zepbound and Saxenda Lawsuits

What are the most common injuries in these lawsuits?

Gastroparesis, intestinal blockages, gallbladder disease, and pancreatitis are the primary injuries alleged in current litigation.

Can I file if I only used the medication for a short time?

Yes. Some patients developed life-threatening complications within weeks. The key is medical documentation connecting symptoms to drug exposure.

Does FDA approval protect the drugmakers from lawsuits?

No. Courts have consistently allowed litigation to move forward when plaintiffs allege that warnings were insufficient or delayed despite mounting evidence of harm.

Is hospitalization required to qualify?

Most strong cases involve ER visits or inpatient care, but hospitalization is not the only factor. If medical experts confirm lasting damage tied to the drug, you may still have a case.

How long do I have to file a claim?

Statutes of limitation vary by state, often two to three years from discovery of injury. Acting quickly preserves evidence and ensures your claim can move forward.

Call (303) 999-9999 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form