If I nearly died from liver failure caused from a medication I was required to take overseas and have recovered but can’t get life insurance for my autistic son because of the liver issue, is this actionable?

Your employer would not be liable, or responsible, for the medication unless and only if you could show that they were aware of a significant risk or danger from taking it, but despite being aware of that risk, required you to take it. In that instance, their requiring you to take something with a known risk or threat could qualify as the sort of negligence, or reasonable carelessness, that would make them liable for your losses or costs. But without knowledge of a significant risk, detrimental side effect, etc. they are not liable, since without knowledge of a risk they ignored, they did nothing wrong.
You may be able to bring a product liability case against the drug manufacturer if there was a defect in manufacture (e.g. contamination) which caused your problems, or if the medicine had siginficiant risks or side effects which they did not adequately test for, take steps to eliminate, or warn about, and/or if the medicine was so risky it should not have been used. But if the medicine was generally safe and you just happened to have an unusual or atypical or rare reaction, they, too, would most likely not be liable: it is the nature of drugs and medicines that most have some risk or side effects associated with them, and manufacturers are only liable if on the balance, the risks exceed the rewards/gains, the medicine is inappropriately risky or harmful, and/or they do not warn/advise of the risks. Be aware, though, that a case against a drug manufacturer can be an expensive, long undertaking--consult with an attorney at length and weigh carefully the costs, odds of winning, etc. before embarking on this.

Your employer would not be liable, or responsible, for the medication unless and only if you could show that they were aware of a significant risk or danger from taking it, but despite being aware of that risk, required you to take it. In that instance, their requiring you to take something with a known risk or threat could qualify as the sort of negligence, or reasonable carelessness, that would make them liable for your losses or costs. But without knowledge of a significant risk, detrimental side effect, etc. they are not liable, since without knowledge of a risk they ignored, they did nothing wrong.
You may be able to bring a product liability case against the drug manufacturer if there was a defect in manufacture (e.g. contamination) which caused your problems, or if the medicine had siginficiant risks or side effects which they did not adequately test for, take steps to eliminate, or warn about, and/or if the medicine was so risky it should not have been used. But if the medicine was generally safe and you just happened to have an unusual or atypical or rare reaction, they, too, would most likely not be liable: it is the nature of drugs and medicines that most have some risk or side effects associated with them, and manufacturers are only liable if on the balance, the risks exceed the rewards/gains, the medicine is inappropriately risky or harmful, and/or they do not warn/advise of the risks. Be aware, though, that a case against a drug manufacturer can be an expensive, long undertaking--consult with an attorney at length and weigh carefully the costs, odds of winning, etc. before embarking on this.