Wegovy and Ozempic Side Effects & Lawsuits Under the CLRA

We have observed a growing trend of medical malpractice lawsuits being framed as violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The CLRA is a state law in California designed to shield consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices. Because the MICRA statute in California imposes strict limits on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases, some lawyers are turning to the CLRA as a workaround to bypass these restrictions.

Many malpractice insurance carriers are declining coverage for CLRA claims. As a result, doctors are defended against the malpractice aspect of the claim but not against claims related to advertising and promotion. This issue has become particularly prevalent in cases involving side effects of high-demand products like Ozempic and Wegovy, which have legitimate medical uses but are often marketed for lifestyle benefits.

For example, it is an established fact that individuals with type 2 diabetes who take GLP-1 medications may develop potentially blinding eye conditions, sometimes very rapidly. While it is not yet proven, it is believed that this side effect might also occur in individuals without diabetes. If a GLP-1 drug is prescribed for weight loss without a thorough evaluation and disclosure of the risk of blindness, and blindness subsequently occurs, a CLRA lawsuit could arise. This serves as just one illustrative example.

Ultimately, however, isn’t such a claim still a malpractice action at its core? In response to CLRA claims, one common defense is to argue:

> “When a plaintiff asserts a claim against a healthcare provider on a legal theory other than professional negligence, courts must determine whether the claim is nonetheless based on the healthcare provider's professional negligence, which would require application of MICRA. To make that determination, courts must examine not only the legal theory alleged, but also the nature of the healthcare provider's alleged conduct and the legislative history of the MICRA provision at issue.” (Larson v. UHS of Rancho Springs (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 336, 347). See also: Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of University of California (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 343.

In addition to this argument, the CLRA itself includes specific requirements that must be satisfied for a claim to proceed. When facing a CLRA malpractice claim with a reservation of rights, it is crucial for the doctor to retain a medical defense attorney as well as a CLRA specialist.

Daniel Horowitz is a physician-focused lawyer whose practice is dedicated to protecting individual doctors. If you are dealing with a mixed malpractice and CLRA case—such as one involving Wegovy side effects—it is essential to understand the risks associated with an insurance company’s reservation of rights. Contact Daniel Horowitz to ensure your interests are protected.