December 3, 2019: Harris County, Texas

JURY TRIAL VERDICT - $111,845.00

Milan was retained to try a personal injury case for a Plaintiff where the Defendant's insurance carrier refused to tender the $30,000.00  bodily injury policy limits.  After refusing the Plaintiff's reasonable demand,  the Defendant's carrier offered policy limits at the Courthouse steps. The Plaintiff rejected this untimely offer, which was made more than 19 months after her reasonable demand. Milan tried the case to a Harris County jury and his client was awarded $111,845.00 in damages for medical care expenses in the past, physical pain in the past, mental anguish in the past, and physical impairment sustained in the past. The jury's award was almost 4 times the policy limits.  This is the second six-figure jury trial verdict Milan has obtained for a Plaintiff in 2019.

February 20, 2019: Harris County, Texas

JURY TRIAL VERDICT - $300,000.00

Milan obtained a $300,000.00  verdict against the defendant in a sexual assault case involving a 7-year old child.

The firm's experienced attorneys, are aggressive advocates who work to maximize their clients' results while minimizing their legal expenses. Don't be afraid to ask an attorney about their trial experience (specifically if their experience includes cases with facts similar to your case) and what results were obtained. Consistent trial results are an important metric.

Some cases can be favorably resolved before a trial is required. 

APRIL 18, 2019

Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas on appeal from 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Milan represented the Defendant/Appellee who was sued as a result of a rear-end collision which occurred on June 6, 2015. The Defendant/Appellee was served with the lawsuit after the two-year statute of limitations expired. Milan raised the affirmative defense of "statute of limitations" on behalf of his client. He argued that while the lawsuit was timely filed, the Plaintiff/Appellant did not serve his client until after the statute expired, and that the Plaintiff/Appellant could not prove "due diligence" in both the issuance of citation and the service of citation as a matter of law. Pursuant to Proulx v. Wells, 235 S.W.3d 213, 215 (Tex. 2007), Milan contended that a timely filed suit does not suspend the running of limitations unless the Plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation, and  specifically argued:

1. The statute of limitations expired on June 6, 2017;

2. The Defendant/Appellee was not served with the Original Petition until September 14, 2017 - 100 days after the expiration of the limitations period;

3. Plaintiff/Appellee first requested service of process on June 9, 2017,  which was 10 days after filing the Original Petition and 3 days after the limitations expired.

The 215th District Court agreed with Milan's arguments and dismissed Plaintiff's/Appellant's lawsuit with prejudice based on the affirmative defense of Statute of Limitations and an appeal followed. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas (No. 01-18-00122-CV) overruled all 5 points of error raised by the Plaintiff/Appellant, affirmed the final order of the trial court, and ordered the Plaintiff/Appellant to pay all appellate costs.

[READ ABOUT OUR OTHER RESULTS]