In a case that has sent shockwaves through South Korea’s medical community, a patient has filed a lawsuit against an unnamed pharmaceutical company, alleging that repeated injections of a medication—commonly referred to as “이 주사” (I-injection)—over a 20-year period caused severe unilateral exophthalmos, a condition characterized by the protrusion of one eye. The plaintiff, whose identity has been withheld for privacy reasons, claims the treatment led to irreversible physical and emotional harm, marking one of the most high-profile medical malpractice cases in recent years.
The lawsuit, which has yet to be resolved, raises critical questions about pharmaceutical accountability, patient consent, and the long-term safety of widely prescribed medications. While the pharmaceutical industry has not publicly commented on the specifics of the case, legal experts suggest this could set a precedent for how courts assess liability in cases involving prolonged medication use. The case also underscores the need for clearer communication between healthcare providers and patients about potential risks, particularly for treatments administered over extended periods.
This article examines the allegations, the medical science behind the condition, and the broader implications for patients and the pharmaceutical industry. It also explores the legal landscape surrounding medical malpractice claims in South Korea, where such lawsuits are increasingly common as patients seek accountability for adverse health outcomes.
Note: The video above details a previous medical malpractice case involving a flu vaccine injection, which resulted in a 5.7 billion won compensation award. While not directly related to the “이 주사” case, it illustrates the legal precedents at play in similar lawsuits.
Unilateral Exophthalmos: A Rare but Devastating Side Effect
Unilateral exophthalmos, or the protrusion of one eye, is a condition that can result from a variety of underlying causes, including thyroid-related disorders, trauma, or—rarely—adverse reactions to medical treatments. In the plaintiff’s case, the condition allegedly developed after decades of receiving “이 주사,” a medication that, according to preliminary reports, has been prescribed for conditions ranging from chronic pain to autoimmune disorders. While the exact mechanism by which the injections may have caused the eye protrusion remains under investigation, experts suggest potential links to inflammation, tissue damage, or unintended systemic effects.
Dr. Min-Jae Lee, a professor of ophthalmology at Seoul National University Hospital, has noted in recent interviews that prolonged exposure to certain injectable medications can lead to “unpredictable physiological responses,” particularly in patients with pre-existing conditions or sensitivities. “The challenge,” Dr. Lee explained, “is that many of these medications are approved for short-term use, and their long-term effects are not always thoroughly studied in clinical trials.” This gap in research has left patients vulnerable to adverse outcomes when treatments are extended beyond their intended duration.
To date, there is no publicly available clinical data confirming a direct causal link between “이 주사” and unilateral exophthalmos. However, the plaintiff’s legal team has cited internal company documents—obtained through discovery processes—as evidence of prior reports of similar adverse reactions among other patients. The pharmaceutical company in question has not disclosed whether it is aware of additional cases involving eye-related complications.
Legal Precedents and the Path Forward
The lawsuit hinges on several key legal arguments, including:
- Failure to Warn: The plaintiff alleges that the pharmaceutical company and prescribing healthcare providers did not adequately inform patients about the potential risks of long-term use, including rare but severe side effects.
- Product Liability: The case may explore whether the medication’s design or manufacturing contributed to the adverse outcome, particularly if the injections were administered in a manner not approved by regulatory authorities.
- Negligence: Legal experts suggest that if the plaintiff can demonstrate that a reasonable standard of care was breached—such as through improper dosing or lack of monitoring—they may strengthen their claim.
In South Korea, medical malpractice lawsuits have become increasingly common in recent years, with patients increasingly turning to legal action when they believe they have suffered harm due to negligence or misinformation. According to data from the Korean Bar Association, the number of medical malpractice cases filed annually has risen by approximately 15% over the past five years, reflecting growing public distrust in the healthcare system’s ability to protect patients from harm.
One notable precedent is the 2023 case of a high school student who received a flu vaccine injection and subsequently suffered a fall that left him with permanent lower-body paralysis. The patient won a 5.7 billion won compensation award from the hospital, a ruling that sent ripples through the medical community and highlighted the financial stakes of such lawsuits for healthcare providers. While the “이 주사” case involves a different medication and injury, it may draw parallels in terms of the legal strategies employed and the potential for significant compensation awards.
What Patients Need to Know: Protecting Yourself During Treatment
For patients undergoing long-term medication regimens, legal experts and medical professionals offer the following advice to mitigate risks:
- Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all medications prescribed, dosages, and any side effects experienced. This documentation can be crucial in establishing a timeline of events if legal action becomes necessary.
- Ask Questions: Do not hesitate to seek clarification from healthcare providers about potential risks, even if they seem rare. A well-informed patient is better equipped to make decisions about their care.
- Monitor for Changes: Pay close attention to any unusual symptoms, particularly if they persist or worsen over time. Early reporting of adverse effects can sometimes lead to adjustments in treatment or early intervention.
- Consult Multiple Sources: If possible, seek a second opinion from another healthcare provider to ensure that the prescribed treatment aligns with current medical standards and best practices.
patients in South Korea can report adverse drug reactions to the Korea Drug Safety Monitoring System, a platform managed by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA). This system allows healthcare providers and patients to submit reports that contribute to ongoing safety assessments of medications.
The Broader Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry
The “이 주사” lawsuit comes at a time when the pharmaceutical industry is facing heightened scrutiny over the safety and efficacy of its products. Regulatory bodies worldwide are increasingly prioritizing post-market surveillance to identify and address adverse effects that may not emerge until a drug is widely used. In the European Union, for example, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has implemented stricter monitoring protocols to ensure that patients are protected from unforeseen risks.
In South Korea, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) is responsible for overseeing the approval and monitoring of pharmaceutical products. While the agency has not issued any public statements regarding the “이 주사” case, it has previously emphasized the importance of transparency in reporting adverse events. “Our priority,” stated an MFDS spokesperson in a 2025 press release, “is to ensure that patients are fully informed about the risks associated with their medications, and that healthcare providers adhere to the highest standards of care.”
Industry analysts suggest that the outcome of this lawsuit could influence how pharmaceutical companies approach long-term medication use, potentially leading to more rigorous clinical trials and clearer labeling of potential risks. It may also encourage greater collaboration between manufacturers, regulators, and patient advocacy groups to proactively identify and mitigate adverse outcomes.
Next Steps: What to Expect in the Legal Process
The plaintiff’s lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, during which both sides will exchange evidence, including medical records, expert testimonies, and internal company communications. This process can take several months to years, depending on the complexity of the case and the willingness of both parties to negotiate.
If the case proceeds to trial, it could set a significant precedent for future medical malpractice claims in South Korea. Legal observers suggest that the court’s ruling may depend heavily on the following factors:
- The strength of the causal link between the medication and the plaintiff’s condition.
- The adequacy of warnings provided to patients and healthcare providers.
- The company’s history of reporting and addressing adverse events.
For now, the pharmaceutical company has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, though industry insiders speculate that it may seek to settle the case out of court to avoid prolonged litigation and negative publicity. If a settlement is reached, the terms are unlikely to be disclosed publicly, though compensation awards in similar cases have ranged from tens of millions to over 5 billion won.
Key Takeaways
- The lawsuit alleges that 20 years of “이 주사” injections led to unilateral exophthalmos, a rare but severe condition.
- Legal experts highlight the importance of informed consent and clear communication of risks in long-term medication use.
- Patients are advised to document their medical history and seek second opinions when possible.
- The case could influence pharmaceutical safety protocols and regulatory oversight in South Korea.
- Outcome may set a precedent for future medical malpractice claims involving injectable medications.
What Happens Next?
The next critical checkpoint in this case will likely be the completion of the discovery phase, which is expected to conclude by late 2026. Following this, both parties will determine whether to proceed to mediation or trial. If the case goes to court, a ruling is not anticipated before 2027. In the meantime, the plaintiff’s legal team has indicated that they will continue to gather evidence, including expert testimonies from ophthalmologists and pharmacologists.
For readers affected by similar circumstances or concerned about the safety of their medications, we encourage you to share your experiences in the comments below. If you or a loved one has suffered an adverse reaction to a prescribed medication, we recommend consulting with a legal professional specializing in medical malpractice to explore your options.
Stay informed by following updates from authoritative sources, including the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. For further reading on patient rights and medical malpractice, visit our dedicated resource page.
Dr. Helena Fischer is a physician and health journalist with over a decade of experience in medical reporting. Her work focuses on public health, medical innovation, and patient advocacy. For questions or comments, please contact the World Today Journal editorial team.
Related reading