The Moment You Found This Study, You Already Knew
You started the medication because your doctor said it would help. Maybe it was Ozempic for type 2 diabetes. Maybe it was Wegovy or Zepbound for weight loss. Maybe you answered an ad, clicked a telehealth link, filled out a five-minute questionnaire, and had a prescription in your hand the same afternoon. The pounds came off. The number on the scale moved. And somewhere along the way, you started feeling weaker. You stopped taking the stairs. The grocery bags got heavier. You told yourself it was just getting older, just the calorie deficit, just your body adjusting.
Then maybe you fell. Maybe your balance shifted and your hand found the wall just in time. Maybe your doctor looked at a clean blood test, told you that you were doing great, and sent you home. Maybe a family member watched you struggle to stand from a chair and asked, quietly, whether the medication was the reason.
Then you found the ENDO 2026 study. Seven hundred and fifty-three people just like you. Daily steps dropping from 5,047 to 4,487. Moderate-to-vigorous activity falling from 28 minutes a day to 22. Lean muscle mass — the tissue that keeps you standing, walking, and independent — wasting away in silence while the scale moved the right direction.
What you are feeling is real. It has a name — sarcopenia, the clinical term for muscle loss. And the new research confirms what patients have been telling doctors for years: the drug alone is not enough, the label did not warn you about this, and the people who sold you the medication did not tell you what they knew about lean-mass loss from their own clinical trials.
This page is the page we wish someone had handed us the day one of our own family members called and said, I think this medication is making me weak. It is built for one person — the person reading it right now, or the person searching on their behalf at 2 a.m. because they finally realized something is wrong.
What the ENDO 2026 Study Actually Found
The research is scheduled for presentation this week at ENDO 2026, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Chicago. Lead author Dr. Sajana Maharjan of HSHS St. John’s Hospital in Springfield, Illinois, working with NIH research-program data, analyzed 753 adults with obesity who began a GLP-1 medication — semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy), liraglutide, dulaglutide, or tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound). The cohort was mostly female, with a mean age of 52.7 years.
The numbers are not ambiguous. Average daily steps fell from 5,047 to 4,487 — a drop of roughly 560 steps a day. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity fell from 28 to 22 minutes per day. The largest declines appeared in two groups: men, and patients already living with joint or muscle pain.
Dr. Maharjan’s conclusion in the Endocrine Society press release was direct: GLP-1 drugs reduce both fat and lean muscle mass, which means physical activity is essential for preserving strength and long-term health. Without that activity, a meaningful share of the weight you are losing is muscle — and muscle, once lost, is far harder to rebuild than fat is to lose.
Dr. Peter Balazs, a hormone and weight-loss specialist practicing in New York and New Jersey, echoed the finding in an interview with Fox News Digital. Being in a calorie deficit causes the body to conserve energy, he explained, lowering metabolic rate. The drug’s known side effects — nausea, fatigue, gastrointestinal discomfort — further suppress the desire or ability to move.
The study is retrospective and observational. It shows association, not laboratory causation. But its methodology — linking participant records directly to fitness-tracker activity — mirrors the exact kind of evidence your own case will need. And it confirms what STEP trial data has shown for years: a significant share of weight lost on GLP-1 medications comes from lean mass, not fat.
The Science: Why GLP-1 Drugs Cause Muscle Loss
GLP-1 receptor agonists work by mimicking a hormone your gut releases after you eat. They slow gastric emptying, signal satiety to the brain, and lower blood sugar. They are, by every measure, effective for weight loss and glycemic control. That is the half of the story the television commercials tell.
The other half is this: when you eat less, your body does not selectively burn fat. It burns whatever tissue is available. And the lean tissue most readily sacrificed during aggressive caloric restriction is skeletal muscle — exactly the tissue that holds you upright, climbs stairs, catches you when you trip, and gets you out of a chair without thinking.
The mechanism is straightforward, and it was knowable to the manufacturers long before ENDO 2026:
- Caloric deficit reduces anabolic signaling. Less protein intake, less insulin response to meals, less mechanical loading from reduced activity — the three signals your muscles need to maintain themselves all drop at once.
- Lean mass is preferentially catabolized. Multiple analyses of the semaglutide STEP trial data estimated that roughly 40% of weight lost was lean mass, not fat. Some subgroup analyses put the figure higher.
- GI side effects amplify protein insufficiency. Nausea and reduced appetite cut protein intake further, accelerating muscle breakdown.
- Fatigue suppresses resistance training. Even patients who want to lift weights find they cannot tolerate the workload. The ENDO 2026 study quantifies exactly that suppression: the average user moved less, not more.
- Age compounds the loss. Adults over 50 already lose 1-2% of muscle mass per year from normal aging. A medication that accelerates that loss without warning is, for an older adult, a setup for a fragility fracture within a few years.
This is not speculative science. It was documented in the manufacturers’ own clinical trial data before either Ozempic or Wegovy received FDA approval. The question is not whether the manufacturers knew. The question is what they did with that knowledge — and the answer, on the current record, is that they marketed the drugs as lifestyle miracles while burying the muscle-loss mechanism in technical appendices.
The Symptoms You May Be Living With
Sarcopenia does not announce itself. It creeps. Here is what we hear from clients and what the medical literature describes:
- Unusual weakness. Grocery bags feel heavier. Lifting a child or grandchild becomes harder. Grip strength drops — opening jars, carrying luggage, holding a steering wheel all require more effort.
- Balance problems and near-falls. You reach for the counter when you stand. You stumble on uneven pavement. You wake up stiff and unsteady.
- Fatigue disproportionate to activity. A short walk leaves you exhausted in a way it never did before. Rest does not restore you the way it used to.
- Documented falls. The first fall is the warning sign. The second fall is the case.
- Fragility fractures. Wrists, hips, vertebrae. Bones break from falls that would not have broken them a year earlier — because the muscle that should have absorbed the impact was not there to do its job.
- GI distress that suppresses eating. Persistent nausea, early satiety, constipation or diarrhea. The same symptoms that suppress appetite also suppress the protein intake your body needs to rebuild.
- Loss of independence. Driving becomes harder. Climbing stairs at home becomes impossible. Family members begin to worry out loud.
Some of you reading this will recognize every item on this list. Some will recognize a few. If you are over 60, or if you started the medication through a telehealth platform without ever being told about resistance training, or if you have already fallen once, the legal significance of those symptoms is real. We address that significance below.
Did Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly Warn You?
The current Ozempic and Wegovy labels carry a black-box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors. They warn about pancreatitis, hypoglycemia, acute kidney injury, and hypersensitivity reactions. They do not carry a specific warning about sarcopenia, lean-mass loss, or the necessity of concomitant resistance training. They do not warn that, on average, users reduce their daily activity by roughly 11% — the ENDO 2026 finding. They do not warn that a substantial share of the weight loss is muscle.
That omission is the heart of a failure-to-warn claim under Texas product liability law.
Texas recognizes strict product liability for manufacturers who place a product in the stream of commerce in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition. A product is defectively designed or inadequately warned when, at the time it left the manufacturer’s control, it was more dangerous than the ordinary consumer would expect and the manufacturer failed to give reasonable warnings of the danger.
The relevant legal framework:
The Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A and §402B impose on manufacturers a duty to warn of risks known or knowable in light of contemporaneous scientific knowledge. A warning is adequate only if it communicates the nature, severity, and likelihood of the risk in language an ordinary consumer can understand. A label buried in a physician’s-only insert that the patient never sees does not satisfy that duty when the risk manifests in the patient’s body.
The learned intermediary doctrine — the defense Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly will raise — holds that a prescription-drug manufacturer discharges its duty by warning the prescribing physician, not the patient directly. Texas courts apply this doctrine, but it is not a shield for silence. The doctrine requires an adequate warning to the physician. A label that fails to flag lean-mass loss, sarcopenia risk, or the necessity of resistance training does not adequately warn the physician — and the physician cannot warn the patient of what the label never told them.
If you were prescribed Ozempic or Wegovy for weight loss and were never told that resistance training was essential to preserve muscle mass, that is not a counseling failure of your doctor alone. It is a labeling failure that traces back to the manufacturer who chose what to include and what to omit.
The Telehealth Loophole: When the Prescription Comes Without the Counseling
A large and growing share of GLP-1 prescriptions in Texas are written through telehealth platforms — companies like Ro, Hims, Sequence, and Mochi that connect patients to a prescriber through a smartphone or laptop, often within hours of signing up. The convenience is real. The medical supervision, in many cases, is not.
These platforms promise streamlined access to semaglutide, tirzepatide, and their compounded cousins. They charge monthly fees that include the prescription and the medication. What many of them do not include is:
- Baseline body-composition analysis (DEXA scan, InBody, or BodPod)
- Counseling on resistance training requirements during GLP-1 therapy
- Protein-intake guidance and nutritional planning
- Serial monitoring of lean-mass retention
- Coordination with an exercise physiologist or physical therapist
- Longitudinal follow-up beyond the prescription refill
Where that omission causes harm, the prescribing physician and the platform itself may be liable for medical malpractice. The standard of care for a patient initiating a GLP-1 medication — particularly one prescribed for weight loss in a patient with risk factors like advanced age, low baseline activity, or joint pain — includes more than writing the prescription. The ENDO 2026 study identified men and patients with joint or muscle pain as the groups with the largest declines in activity. Those are exactly the groups a reasonable prescriber should have monitored more carefully, not less.
If you received your prescription through a five-minute online questionnaire with no baseline assessment, no resistance-training counseling, and no follow-up body-composition tracking, that platform may bear a share of the legal liability for what happened to you.
Who Qualifies for a GLP-1 Lawsuit?
You do not need to have suffered a broken hip to qualify. The threshold is injury that was preventable with proper warning and proper monitoring. Here is the screening checklist our firm uses:
- You took a GLP-1 medication — Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, Zepbound, or a compounded semaglutide/tirzepatide product — for any duration.
- You experienced muscle loss, weakness, fatigue, balance problems, a fall, or a fragility fracture after starting the medication.
- You were not warned by your prescriber, the label, or the marketing materials about the sarcopenia risk or the necessity of resistance training.
- You have documentation — prescription records, medical records, fitness-tracker data, or DEXA scans — that ties the injury to the medication period.
- You are within Texas’s two-year statute of limitations, accounting for the discovery rule (discussed below).
Qualifying cases include, but are not limited to:
- Documented lean-mass loss on DEXA scan before and after GLP-1 therapy
- Falls resulting in fractures, hospitalization, or surgical intervention
- Functional decline requiring physical therapy, assistive devices, or home modifications
- Nursing-home placement precipitated by muscle loss and falls
- Wrongful death of an elderly spouse or parent whose fall was compounded by GLP-1-induced sarcopenia
- Patients prescribed through telehealth platforms that omitted exercise counseling and body-composition monitoring
If you are uncertain whether your situation qualifies, call us. The consultation is free, confidential, and there is no obligation. We will tell you honestly whether we can help — and if we cannot, we will tell you who can.
Evidence You Need to Preserve This Week
This is the single most time-sensitive part of your case. The records that prove your injury are disappearing right now. Do not wait to contact a lawyer before taking these steps — take them today, then call us.
1. Your fitness tracker data. If you wear a Fitbit, Apple Watch, Garmin, Whoop, Oura, or similar device, your step counts, heart rate, and workout history are the closest mirror to the ENDO 2026 study methodology. This data auto-deletes. Apple Health typically retains data for a limited window unless you export it. Fitbit accounts have retention policies measured in months. Take screenshots of your daily steps, your workout minutes, and any “move” or “exercise” rings going back as far as you can. Export your data through the app settings. Save the files to a location you control.
2. DEXA scans and body-composition reports. If your gym, doctor’s office, or a standalone facility performed a DEXA scan, BodPod, or InBody test before or during your GLP-1 therapy, obtain those records now. Facilities routinely purge imaging after 5-7 years. The before-and-after comparison is the clearest objective proof of lean-mass loss.
3. Telehealth platform records. If you were prescribed through Ro, Hims, Sequence, Mochi, or any similar platform, request your complete records immediately — intake forms, visit notes, messaging logs, prescription history. Some platforms have begun limiting retention in response to litigation. Export every page. Screenshot your account dashboard.
4. Prescription and pharmacy records. Your pharmacy fill history proves the medication, the dose, the duration, and the prescribing channel. Texas pharmacies are required to retain records for a minimum of two years, but many keep them longer. Obtain yours through your pharmacy’s patient portal or by written request.
5. Marketing materials. Screenshots of the television commercials. Screenshots of Instagram and TikTok advertisements. Screenshots of celebrity endorsements. The marketing message you absorbed is part of the fraudulent-promotion case. The internet archive (archive.org) can preserve web pages that the manufacturer might later delete.
6. Medical records from every provider who treated you during and after GLP-1 therapy — primary care, endocrinology, orthopedics, physical therapy, emergency department visits after falls. Use authorized record releases within the next 60 days.
The preservation demand we send on your behalf goes to the manufacturers, the telehealth platforms, and the third-party data custodians. The clock stops the day you call.
Texas’s 2-Year Deadline and the Discovery Rule
Texas law sets a two-year statute of limitations on personal injury claims under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §16.003. For product liability and negligence claims arising from GLP-1 medications, the clock generally begins when you knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known the identity of the defendant and the injury.
This is the discovery rule — and it matters enormously for GLP-1 cases. Many patients did not connect their weakness or their fall to the medication at the time. They thought it was age. They thought it was the calorie deficit. They thought it was just losing weight. The two-year clock may not have started running until the connection became apparent — for many of our clients, that moment is the ENDO 2026 study itself, or a conversation with a new doctor who asked about the medication.
That said, do not assume the discovery rule gives you unlimited time. The longer you wait after learning of the connection, the more the defense will argue you should have known earlier. Evidence is being lost right now. The fitness tracker data is being overwritten. The telehealth records are being purged. The most powerful thing you can do is act this week.
There is also the modified comparative fault issue. Texas applies a 51% bar under §33.001 — if you are found to be more than 50% at fault for your own injury, your recovery is barred. The manufacturers will argue that you should have exercised more, that you ignored warnings, that you failed to seek follow-up care. We counter each of those arguments below. But the architecture of Texas law is different from states with pure comparative negligence, and the way your case is presented from day one affects how that fault allocation is framed.
One additional protection: Texas recognizes the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) under §17.50. If the manufacturer’s marketing created a false impression about the drug — for example, that exercise was unnecessary, or that muscle loss was not a concern — a DTPA claim can support treble damages and attorney’s fees. That remedy is not available in every state. Texas offers it.
What Your Case May Be Worth
We do not promise specific dollar amounts. We do not guarantee outcomes. What we can do is walk you through the range of recoveries that documented GLP-1 injury cases are currently producing in similar litigation, and explain what drives the number.
The valuation drivers in your case are:
- Baseline age and function — a 45-year-old who loses 15 pounds of lean mass has a different case than a 72-year-old who falls and breaks a hip because of the same loss.
- Documented lean-mass loss — DEXA-scan evidence before and after GLP-1 therapy is the clearest objective proof of injury.
- Presence of fragility fracture — a wrist, hip, or vertebral fracture converts a soft-tissue case into a catastrophic-injury case.
- Functional decline — assistive devices, home modifications, physical therapy, nursing-home placement — each adds measurable damages.
- Prescribing channel — telehealth-platform cases carry additional corporate-malpractice exposure and potentially higher punitive damages.
- Punitive exposure — Texas allows punitive damages where the defendant’s conduct shows conscious indifference to known risks. Internal documents showing the manufacturer knew about lean-mass loss but chose not to warn the prescribing public support punitive exposure.
The ranges currently observed in the emerging GLP-1 mass tort landscape:
- Documented muscle-mass loss without fracture: $75,000 to $750,000 per case
- Fragility fractures, hospitalization, or surgical intervention: $500,000 to $3,500,000
- Permanent disability, nursing-home placement, or wrongful death from sarcopenic complications: $2,000,000 to $8,000,000+
These ranges reflect documented economic burden — sarcopenia alone costs the U.S. healthcare system an estimated $18.5 billion annually — and the strength of the failure-to-warn evidence against deep-pocket pharmaceutical defendants. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can guarantee is the work: the preservation, the expert development, the discovery, and the trial-ready case.
The Current State of GLP-1 Mass Tort Litigation
The federal consolidation is MDL 3094 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The MDL focuses primarily on gastroparesis (stomach paralysis) and vision loss (NAION) claims, but the door is open for sarcopenia and muscle-loss claims to be added or to proceed in parallel state-court actions.
Several state-court consolidations are also active, including California JCCP proceedings. In Texas, multidistrict litigation procedure under §90.001 allows transfer of similar cases for pretrial efficiency. The strategic decision — whether to file in the federal MDL or in Texas state court — depends on your case’s specific facts, your venue preferences, and the speed at which the MDL is processing claims.
What this means for you: you do not need to wait for the litigation to mature before filing. Cases filed now can be transferred to the appropriate consolidation for pretrial efficiency while preserving your right to a jury trial in your own venue when the case is ready. Filing also triggers the preservation duty in the defendant — the day your complaint is filed, the manufacturer’s obligation to preserve internal documents, marketing materials, and clinical-trial data becomes enforceable.
Bellwether trial strategy in mass tort pharmaceutical cases typically targets plaintiff-friendly venues for the first verdicts. A strong bellwether outcome drives global settlement leverage. The defense knows this. So do we.
The Defense Playbook (And How We Counter Every Move)
The defense playbook in pharmaceutical mass tort is consistent across cases. We name the plays and we name the counters.
Play 1: “You should have exercised more.” The manufacturer and insurer will argue that your muscle loss is your fault — that you failed to engage in resistance training despite the medication’s known effects. The counter: the failure-to-warn claim is precisely that you were never told resistance training was necessary. The manufacturer cannot blame you for not doing what it never told you to do. The learned intermediary doctrine cuts both ways: if the doctor was the one to be warned, and the doctor was not warned either, the failure cascades down to the patient.
Play 2: “The study is observational, not causal.” The defense will note that the ENDO 2026 research shows association, not laboratory causation. The counter: association plus mechanism plus the manufacturers’ own STEP trial data showing 40% lean-mass loss is causation evidence a jury will understand. The legal standard is preponderance of the evidence, not scientific certainty. And the manufacturers’ own clinical trial appendices — which we will obtain in discovery — contain the lean-mass numbers they would prefer the public not see.
Play 3: “You were warned by your doctor.” Learned intermediary doctrine. The counter: the doctrine requires an adequate warning to the physician. If the label does not flag sarcopenia, does not require resistance-training counseling, and does not quantify the muscle-loss risk, no physician was in a position to warn the patient. We depose the prescriber. If the prescriber never discussed resistance training or lean-mass monitoring, the warning chain breaks.
Play 4: “The benefits outweigh the risks.” Risk-benefit framing. The counter: the benefits-versus-risks analysis applies to the patient who was given complete information. A patient who was never told about the muscle-loss risk was never in a position to weigh benefits against risks. The risk-benefit defense presupposes informed consent. The informed consent here was manufactured by omission.
Play 5: “Settle quickly and quietly.” Early lowball offers with nondisclosure agreements. The counter: an early settlement protects the manufacturer, not you. Your long-term medical costs — ongoing physical therapy, future fall risks, potential nursing-home care, monitoring for osteoporosis — compound over decades. A quick settlement captures a fraction of the lifetime damage. We hold the line. For guidance on what to say when an insurance adjuster calls, see our resource on what you should never say to an insurance adjuster.
Play 6: “File in the MDL and wait.” Consolidation delay. The counter: MDL consolidation is a procedural mechanism, not a sentence. Your case can be filed in the MDL and still proceed to trial. Bellwether verdicts create leverage. We file when the case is ready, not when the defendant is ready.
Play 7: “We will monitor your social media.” Surveillance of plaintiffs. The counter: we tell our clients plainly — do not post about your symptoms, your medications, your daily activities, or your case publicly. Anything you post can be taken out of context and used against you. Talk to us before you post.
Frequently Asked Questions
I took Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, not weight loss. Can I still file a claim?
Yes. The failure-to-warn claim is the same whether the drug was prescribed for diabetes or for weight loss. The labeling applied to both indications, and the lean-mass loss mechanism applies to both. If you experienced muscle loss, weakness, falls, or fragility fractures after starting Ozempic, Mounjaro, or any other GLP-1, your prescribing indication does not bar recovery.
I got my prescription through a telehealth platform. Does that change my case?
It can strengthen it. Telehealth platforms that prescribe GLP-1 medications without baseline body-composition assessment, resistance-training counseling, or longitudinal follow-up may bear direct corporate malpractice liability. The omission of those safeguards is a deviation from the standard of care. We name the platform as a defendant in cases where the prescribing channel was telehealth and the safeguards were absent.
How long do I have to file a claim in Texas?
Two years from the date you knew or should have known the identity of the defendant and the nature of your injury, under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §16.003. The discovery rule means the clock may not have started when you first took the medication — it may have started when you connected your symptoms to the drug. The safest course is to act now, before evidence disappears and before the defense argues you waited too long.
What if I am partly at fault? Does that bar my recovery?
Not entirely. Texas applies modified comparative fault under §33.001. If you are 50% or less at fault, your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault but not eliminated. If you are more than 50% at fault, recovery is barred. The defense will try to push you above 50% by arguing you should have exercised more or ignored warnings. Our job is to keep you below that line by showing that any failure on your part was caused by the manufacturer’s failure to warn in the first place.
What if I already settled with the manufacturer or signed something?
Call us before you assume the door is closed. The terms of prior settlements and releases vary. Some releases are narrow; others are broad. Some were signed before the ENDO 2026 study and before the muscle-loss theory was recognized. We review the documents and tell you honestly whether anything can still be pursued.
How much does it cost to hire a lawyer for a GLP-1 case?
Nothing upfront. We work on contingency — you pay no fee unless we recover for you. The free consultation is exactly that: free, confidential, and with no obligation. You can review our full fee structure and what to expect by visiting our resource on how contingency fees work in injury cases.
How long will a case like this take?
Mass tort pharmaceutical cases typically take 2-5 years to resolve, depending on whether your case proceeds through MDL bellwether, state-court bellwether, or individual trial. Some cases settle earlier when evidence preservation is strong and the defense faces exposure. We will give you a realistic timeline based on the specifics of your case during the free consultation. For a general overview of the timeline, see our guide on how long a personal injury case takes.
Is there a class action I can join instead?
GLP-1 litigation is currently proceeding through MDL consolidation and individual case filings, not a single class action. Class actions in pharmaceutical cases often result in small per-plaintiff recoveries. Individual cases or mass-tort bellwether selections typically produce meaningfully higher compensation because they allow your specific damages — your specific DEXA scan, your specific fall, your specific fracture — to drive the number. We can discuss whether class participation or individual filing makes more sense for your circumstances.
What if my family member died from a fall after taking Ozempic or Wegovy?
A wrongful death claim may be available. Under Texas law, the personal representative of the deceased’s estate can bring a survival action and a wrongful death action. The damages include the decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering, the loss of companionship and guidance to the surviving family, funeral and medical expenses, and in some cases exemplary damages. Our firm handles wrongful death claims across Texas — you can learn more about that practice here.
Can I afford a lawyer, and what should I do first?
You cannot afford not to have one. Pharmaceutical manufacturers facing mass tort exposure deploy teams of defense attorneys from day one. The evidence preservation we discussed above is the single most important first step — and the consultation to plan it is free. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 or reach us through our contact page.
How Our Firm Handles GLP-1 Injury Cases
Our firm has recovered more than $50 million for Texas families since 1998. We were built for cases exactly like this — cases where a corporate defendant placed a product in the stream of commerce knowing more than it told the public, and where ordinary people paid for that silence in their bodies.
Ralph Manginello leads our trial team. He has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court, fighting corporate defendants. Before he was a lawyer, he was a journalist — a trained storyteller who knows how to take a complicated record and present it to a jury in language they will remember. He was a championship point guard before that, and he still competes the same way. You can read more about Ralph’s background and trial record on his attorney page.
Lupe Peña is the insider on our team. Before he crossed to the plaintiff side, Lupe spent years inside a national insurance defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He knows how Colossus-style valuation tools underprice injuries. He knows how defense counsel prepares the case they will try. He knows the playbook because he lived it. Now he runs it in reverse. Lupe serves our clients fully in Spanish — a commitment that matters for the many Texas families whose first language is not English. Read more about Lupe here.
Our practice covers the full range of injury litigation that pharmaceutical and corporate negligence touches — from toxic tort and product liability to catastrophic brain injury cases where the injury is invisible on imaging but devastating in life. We know how to build the proof story in a pharmaceutical case: the preservation letters in week one, the expert development in months two and three, the complaint filed when the evidence is frozen and the record is ready.
The consultation is free. There is no fee unless we win. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes — but our commitment to the work does not depend on the outcome. We take GLP-1 injury cases because we have seen what happens when a manufacturer markets a product without telling the public what it knew, and when a telehealth platform writes prescriptions without the safeguards the standard of care requires. We take these cases because the people who come to us deserve a firm that knows the other side’s playbook as well as its own.
If you or someone you love took Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, Zepbound, or a compounded GLP-1 product and experienced muscle loss, weakness, falls, or fragility fractures, the next step is the call. The evidence clock is running. The fitness tracker data is being overwritten. The telehealth records are being purged. The day you call is the day the preservation letter goes out.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911, anytime, day or night. The consultation is free and confidential. Hablamos Español. We serve families across Texas — Houston, Austin, Beaumont, Dallas, San Antonio, the Rio Grande Valley, and every community in between. You can also reach us through our contact page or review our full practice areas to see how we handle pharmaceutical injury, toxic exposure, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases throughout the state.
This page is legal information, not legal advice for your specific case. The facts of every GLP-1 injury matter are different. To find out what the law means for your facts, call us. The call is free, the conversation is confidential, and there is no obligation. If we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you — and we will point you toward someone who is.