Trial Lawyers - Representative Results

Why hire a pretender? Although some "litigation firms" claim they have "proven track records" when it comes to defending or presenting cases, none of their attorneys have seen the inside of a courtroom or picked a jury in years, if ever. While sometimes used interchangeably, there is a clear distinction between a "Litigation" Attorney and a "Trial" Attorney. What is the difference? Most lawsuits are settled before they ever reach a jury. Many self-proclaimed  "litigators" have never selected a jury, presented an opening statement or a closing argument in their career.  Litigators conduct pre-trial discovery, file motions, and attend mediation where the case usually settles. If your case requires a jury trial, do you really want the matter to be used as a "learning experience" for a law firm's inexperienced associate ? On the other hand, a "Trial" attorney tries cases before juries. The outcome of a trial clearly depends on a number of case-specific factors. While no responsible attorney would make any guarantees as to the outcome of any particular case, case results and jury verdicts should be an important metric when deciding on which lawyer to handle your case. Our consistent case results and jury verdicts speak volumes:

5 Jury Trials, 4 Defense Verdicts in 2025.

•  After 5 jury trials, the Plaintiffs have only recovered $100.00.

June 25, 2025

Fort Bend County, Texas (400th Judicial District Court)

JURY DELIBERATES FOR 1 HOUR AND 10 MINUTES AND FINDS THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT. 3 PLAINTIFFS AWARDED NOTHING.

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the Defendant who was sued as a result of a rear-end collision in Missouri City, Texas in 2020. Defendant testified at trial that the Plaintiff driver was driving erratically and blowing her horn behind the Defendant. Defendant further  testified that the Plaintiff driver passed her on the right side (passenger side) without signaling, immediately cut in front of Defendant's vehicle, and slammed on the brakes. Plaintiff driver contended that she was never behind the Defendant's vehicle and that Defendant rear-ended her vehicle because Defendant was on her phone. 

Plaintiff driver, a 21 year-old female, had two passengers in the car:  her thirteen month old son ("Plaintiff 2") and a 52-year old female passenger ("Plaintiff 3").  Plaintiff driver was the only person who claimed any injuries at the scene but declined EMS transport. None of the vehicles involved in this collision were towed from the scene and no airbags deployed in any of the vehicles. Approximately 2 hours after the accident, all three Plaintiffs went to the Emergency Room ("ER"). Plaintiff driver claimed she hit her head on the headrest and had a headache but reported no other injuries at the ER. Plaintiff 2 was examined in the ER where his records indicate "patient is acting appropriate for age, playful walking." Plaintiff 2 was discharged with the finding that he did not "appear to have any traumatic injury." Plaintiff 2 received no further medical treatment.  Plaintiff 3 only complained of low back pain at the ER. Based on this complaint, a series of X-rays was performed on her lower back. The x-rays revealed she had right-sided sacralization of L5, and hypoplasia of the L5-S1 disc. Sacralization is a congenital anomaly, meaning it was present when Plaintiff 3 was born. Hypoplasia at the L5-S1 level refers to the underdevelopment or incomplete formation of the L5 vertebra and/or the L5-S1 disc and facet joints. This condition can lead to a range of symptoms and complications, including low back pain, nerve compression, and potential instability in the lower back. Neither one of these conditions were caused by the accident. To complicate matters further, Plaintiff 3 testified she tore the supraspinatus muscle in her right shoulder during the impact which ultimately required surgical repair. 

The defense pointed out there was a 7-day gap in treatment between the time Plaintiff driver and Plaintiff 3 were discharged from the ER and when they sought additional treatment at a chiropractor.  In addition, both Plaintiff driver and Plaintiff 2 conceded they hired a lawyer before beginning the chiropractic treatment and that their chiropractor made all of the medical referrals. At trial, Plaintiff 2 claimed her neck and back pain began approximately 2-days after being seen in the ER. However, when she completed the intake form at the chiropractor's office seven days after the accident,  Plaintiff driver did not indicate she was seeking treatment for any neck or back pain. Plaintiff driver eventually went to a pain management doctor and received a bilateral L4-L5 facet joint injection. Plaintiff 3 also went to the same pain management doctor and received a right shoulder intraarticular joint injection with local anesthetic and steroids. Plaintiff 3's medical records indicate she obtained 100% relief from this injection in her right shoulder. However, more than a year later, Plaintiff 3 had right shoulder surgery. Plaintiff 3 testified that the right shoulder surgery more than a year after obtaining 100% relief was related to this accident. Plaintiff 3 conceded on cross-examination that she did not seek any interim treatment from the time she obtained 100% relief until the surgical procedure.

Plaintiff Driver Requested $51,076.50 in damages

Plaintiff driver asked the jury to award her $15,076.50 for past medical care; $20,000.00 for pain and mental anguish in the past; $4,000.00 for physical pain and mental anguish in the future; $10,000.00 for physical impairment in the past; and $2,000.00 for physical impairment in the future. 

Plaintiff 3 Requested $103,835.18 in damages

Plaintiff 3 asked the jury to award her $23,835.18 in past medical care; $30,000.00 for pain and mental anguish in the past; $30,000.00 for pain and mental anguish in the future; $10,000 for physical impairment in the past; and $10,000.00 for physical impairment in the future.

The jury deliberated for one hour and ten minutes and found that Milan's client was not the proximate cause of this accident. With that finding, the Plaintiffs recovered nothing at trial. 

May 20, 2025

Harris County, Texas (129th Judicial District Court)

JURY DELIBERATES FOR 38 MINUTES AND ONLY AWARDS PLAINTIFF $100.00 FOR PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the Defendant who was sued as a result of a rear-end collision. Defendant conceded her foot slipped off the brake pedal at a red light and her vehicle rolled into the rear of Plaintiff's Ford F-150 pickup on January 11, 2022.  There was no police or EMS response. Six days after the accident, Plaintiff drove himself to minor emergency care where he was treated and release. Plaintiff complained of neck, back, and right shoulder pain. Plaintiff's medical bills exceeded $37,000.00, which included $10,706.49 for a right acromioclavicular injection. The jury comprised of 9 women and three men awarded  only $100.00 for medical care expenses in the past and nothing on his past pain and suffering claim. 

April 1, 2025

Harris County, Texas (80th Judicial District Court)

JURY DELIBERATES FOR 22 MINUTES AND AWARDS PLAINTIFF NOTHNG FOR 2021 CAR ACCIDENT

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the Defendant who was sued as a result of an alleged rear-end collision. Plaintiff claimed that  Defendant struck the rear of his pickup truck while in traffic on June 15, 2021. The parties waited at the scene for approximately four hours before a police officer arrived. The officer examined the alleged damaged, confirmed no one was injured, and did not write a police report. During those four hours, the Plaintiff never requested an ambulance from the scene, never claimed he was injured, and drove his vehicle home. Plaintiff began treating 3 days post-loss with a chiropractor. Plaintiff treated from June 18, 2021, through September 22, 2021, before he resumed working out of town as a painter. There was a 179-day gap in the Plaintiff's chiropractic treatment when he returned to the same chiropractor on March 21, 2022. Plaintiff alleged he returned 179-days later because of the injuries he sustained in the June 15, 2021, accident. In this interim 179-day period, Plaintiff was involved in a one-vehicle accident in December 2021, where his vehicle "hit a wall" going "approximately 10 miles per hour." Only one of Plaintiff's medical providers were made aware of this interim one-vehicle accident when his treatment resumed on March 22, 2201. Plaintiff was involved in a second as well as  third motor vehicle accident after the December 2021 incident where he hit a wall. In this third accident on August 19, 2023, the Plaintiff fell asleep at the wheel of his vehicle and struck a dividing wall. Plaintiff continued his treatment with the chiropractor and never informed this treatment provider of a third subsequent motor vehicle accident.  After these three accidents, Plaintiff continued to treat for the same type of bodily injuries (neck, low back and shoulders). These were the same or similar type injuries that Plaintiff alleged he sustained in the accident involving the Defendant. Finally, the jury heard that the Plaintiff was involved in a fourth accident in September 2024 when he was struck by a vehicle while walking as a pedestrian near a roadway. This accident caused  the Plaintiff to strike his head and lose consciousness. The defense argued that at best, Plaintiff's claim for "pain and suffering" terminated on September 22, 2021, when he obtained out of town work as a painter.  Although the Defendant conceded she did impact the rear bumper of Plaintiff's vehicle in the June 15, 2021 accident, the defense argued that this minimal impact could not have caused the types of injuries Plaintiff was alleging. For Jury Question 1, the jurors were asked if the negligence of the Defendant proximately caused the accident on June 15, 2021. Despite the concession that the Defendant did impact Plaintiff's rear bumper,  a unanimous jury of 7 men and 5 women answered, "No." Based on their 12-0 finding on Question 1 , the jury could not answer any of the questions regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages resulting in a defense verdict.

March 18, 2025

Harris County, Texas (125th Judicial District Court)

JURY DELIBERATES FOR ONE HOUR AND ONE MINUTE AND AWARDS PLAINTIFF NOTHING FOR 2020 CAR ACCIDENT

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the Defendant who was sued as a result of an alleged rear-end collision. Plaintiff claimed that  Defendant struck the rear of his vehicle while waiting at a stop light. At the scene, Defendant took photographs showing there was no contact between the vehicles and that there was no visible damage to either the Plaintiff's rear bumper or the Defendant's front bumper. The responding officer was presented to the jury via deposition. The officer confirmed there was no damage to either vehicle and that no one claimed any injuries at the scene. The defense retained an expert witness to read the Defendant's electronic data recorder ("EDR") for evidence of any impact between the two vehicles. The defense expert is a certified mentor and trainer for the Bosch Crash Data Retrieval ("CDR") system who routinely instructs peers in the relevant scientific community on the extraction and interpretation of data stored in the EDR. All model year 2013 and newer vehicles equipped with an EDR must record an event if the vehicle experiences a Delta-V (change in velocity) above 5 mph from any direction front, rear, or side. When a vehicle sees a Delta-V greater than 5 mph, the EDR will record 5 seconds of pre-crash speed, braking, acceleration data as well as severity date for the impact itself. In conjunction with the photos taken at the scene, the expert opined there were no recorded events in the Defendant's EDR indicating any impact. According to the expert, an event will be stored when the Delta-V is approximately 5 mph (8km/h) or greater within a 150 ms interval. For Jury Question 1, the jury was asked if the negligence of the Defendant proximately caused the accident.  11 of the 12 jurors indicated, "No." Based on their 11-1 finding , the jury could not answer any of the questions regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages, resulting in a defense verdict.

February 5, 2025

Harris County, Texas (269th Judicial District Court)

JURY AWARDS PLAINTIFF NOTHING FOR 2017 CAR ACCIDENT.

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the Defendant, a 42-year old male who was involved in a 2-car accident with a 24-year old male on March 25, 2017. The accident occurred on South Sam Houston W Parkway. Liability was disputed from the outset. Plaintiff alleged various personal injuries including injuries to his neck, back, and chest. Plaintiff's lone independent eyewitness was an off-duty Stafford police officer. The officer appeared live at trial, in her full police uniform, and testified she saw the Defendant disregard the  red light. On cross-examination, this witness was not able to describe the Defendant nor the vehicle he was allegedly operating. Defendant had his wife and two children in the vehicle with him at the time of the accident. Defendant testified that the traffic light controlling the intersection was green when he entered the intersection. Plaintiff's medical records and bills were not admitted in evidence after the Court sustained Defendant's objections. Plaintiff's chiropractor appeared live at trial but was unable to testify that this accident caused the Plaintiff's alleged injuries. Plaintiff conceded he had not sought any medical treatment from calendar year 2018 through the date of trial related to this accident.  The jury deliberated for 57 minutes and reached a 10-2 verdict. Ten jurors  believed both parties were negligent and that each party was 50% responsible for the loss.  Plaintiff requested a minimum of $30,000 in damages for: Physical Pain sustained in the past; Physical Pain that, in reasonable probability he will sustain in the future; Mental Anguish in the past; Mental Anguish that in reasonable probability, he will sustain in the future; Physical Impairment in the past; and Physical Impairment that, in reasonable probability, he will sustain in the future. The jury awarded nothing on all of these claims. 

August 7, 2024

Harris County, Texas (270th Judicial District Court)

Milan G. Marinkovich represented a Defendant (Defendant 1), a 48-year old female who was involved in a multi-vehicle accident on December 15, 2019, on Interstate 45 near Crosstimbers. Liability was disputed from the outset. Defendant 1 alleged that a co-defendant (Defendant 2), struck Defendant 1 causing her to contact the Plaintiff's vehicle. As a result, a 3 vehicle accident ensued. The Plaintiff, a 43-year old female,  refused ambulance transport at the scene and incurred $19,465.00 in medical specials from various medical providers. Plaintiff further alleged she sustained multi-level cervical disc herniations at C3-C4, C5-C6, and C6-C7. Plaintiff subsequently received a "therapeutic C5-C6 and C6-C7 facet joint injection with local anesthetic and steroids." At trial, the Judge  granted a final judgment as a matter of law after granting both defendants' motion to exclude experts, evidence of causation, and evidence of damages. The court found that no evidence was raised or presented on any fact issue on one or more material issues that Plaintiff must establish to be entitled to a judgment. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to present any evidence of the elements of causation and damages as to Defendants. As a result, Plaintiff recovered nothing. 

April 11, 2024

Fort Bend County, Texas (434th Judicial District Court)
 

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the Defendant (a 45 year-old female) who allegedly rear ended the Plaintiffs’ vehicle on January 11, 2021 near the 9700 block of Mason Road. Plaintiff #1 was a 22 year-old female (19 on the date of loss) and Plaintiff #2 a 59 year-old female (56 on the date of loss). Milan's client did not appear at trial, so liability was not contested. The case was tried to the jury with an empty chair. 

Neither of the two Plaintiffs required an ambulance at the scene. Plaintiff #1 admitted she declined an ambulance twice from the scene; once when she called 911 and the second time after the investigating officer arrived. Plaintiff #2 confirmed she never requested an ambulance at the scene. There was no reported loss of consciousness at the scene from either Plaintiff, and both confirmed the airbags in their vehicle did not deploy.

Approximately 5 hours after the accident, both Plaintiffs were driven to an emergency room (“ER”) by the same family member. At the ER, Plaintiff #1 only complained of a headache. Plaintiff #1 received Brain and Spine CT scans. Under the section entitled secondary assessment for trauma, Plaintiff #1’s medical records revealed “no apparent injury/deformity”, “no abnormalities.” The CT scans did not reveal any injuries. Plaintiff #1 was discharged from the ER within an hour and 30 minutes of her arrival. Plaintiff #2 complained of back pain, chest wall pain, and a muscle strain in her lower leg. Similar to Plaintiff #1, Plaintiff #2’s medical records  indicated “no apparent injury/deformity”, “no abnormalities” under the section secondary assessment for trauma. Plaintiff #2 was discharged from the ER within two hours and 28 minutes of her arrival. While the ER discharge records advised both Plaintiffs they could return to the emergency room if their pain persisted, neither returned for any type of follow-up treatment.

A week after this accident, both Plaintiffs began treatment with a chiropractor for “neck and back” pain. The Plaintiff’s were referred to the same chiropractor by their attorney. The Plaintiffs were also sent to the same pain management doctor 16 days after the accident. Plaintiff #2 appeared at trial with a walker and used it as an assistive device to walk to the witness stand. The jury heard that Plaintiff #2 was already receiving disability payments for multiple medical conditions, including heart disease (having a prior heart attack in 2019), and “chronic pain” prior to this accident. The pain management doctor’s records did not indicate he was aware Plaintiff #2 was receiving disability for “chronic pain" prior to this accident.

Pre-litigation, Plaintiff #1 was asked for additional information but she neglected to provide it. Plaintiff #2 was offered $19,000.00, however she rejected it.

At trial, Plaintiff #1 asked for at least $4,531.00, and suggested she should receive $9,031.00. Plaintiff #2 asked for at least $13,609.31 and suggested she was entitled to $99,019.31. The jury, comprised of 4 men and 8 women deliberated for 45 minutes. The unanimous jury (12-0) awarded the following damages:

Plaintiff 1: 

$1,531.00 for reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred or paid in the past; 

$2,000.00 for physical pain and suffering in the past;  and $1,000.00 for physical impairment experienced in the past for a total award of $4,531.00.

Plaintiff 2: 

$4,119.00 for reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses incurred or paid in the past; $1,500.00 for physical pain and suffering in the past; $1,000.00 for physical pain and suffering that in reasonable probability she will incur in the future; $1,000.00 for physical impairment in the past; and $1,000.00 for physical impairment that, in reasonable probability, she will suffer in the future for a total award of $8,619,00. 

This combined award of $13,150.00 for both Plaintiffs was $5,850.00 less than what only Plaintiff #2 was offered pre-litigation. 

January 12, 2024

Harris County, Texas (County Court at Law No. 1)

DEFENSE VERDICT - PLAINTIFF DEMANDED $130,000.00 - JURY AWARDS NOTHING

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the Defendant (a 56 year-old male) who allegedly rear ended the Plaintiff (a 28 year-old female) on a US Highway 59 service road. The investigating officer found the Defendant "at fault" for failure to control speed, however the Defendant was not cited by the officer due to "minimal [property] damage." The police report further indicated "neither vehicle was towed and neither driver was injured." At trial, both the Plaintiff and Defendant agreed it took the investigating officer at least one hour to respond to the scene and that the officer never spoke with either the Plaintiff or the Defendant before the report was issued. Prior to litigation, Plaintiff submitted $32,247.97 in medical specials and demanded $130,000.00, or the policy limits, whichever was less.  The medical specials included a bilateral L4-L5 facet injection to address Plaintiff's "lumbar posterior column/mechanical pain."

On the date of the accident, September 15, 2021, Plaintiff drove herself to HCA Houston Healthcare Pearland ("HCA") where she complained of neck and low back pain. Plaintiff was treated and released from HCA on the same date. Plaintiff contacted an attorney who referred her to chiropractic care at 1st Choice Accident and Injury ("1st Choice"). Chiropractic care began 6 days after being released from HCA. While still treating with with 1st Choice, Plaintiff returned to HCA on October 22, 2021. This visit occurred after she was in the middle of a fight and another male's fist punched her in the ear. After the punch, Plaintiff complained of pain radiating all around her ear including posteriorly to her neck. Plaintiff neglected to mention either the punch or the the October 22, 2021, visit to HCA to any of her car accident treatment providers. Plaintiff additionally became pregnant after the accident in 2021 and received the bilateral L4-L5 facet injection while pregnant. The Plaintiff testified that neither she nor the treatment provider knew she was pregnant at the time of the injection. At the time of trial in 2024, Plaintiff was pregnant with her second child. Plaintiff testified her current back pain was not from being pregnant, but was from the 2021 car accident with the Defendant. However, the jury heard that the last time the Plaintiff treated for the 2021 car accident was 706 days before trial started. 

At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was a food delivery driver using the Favor App. Favor is similar to Doordash, but only available in Texas. Plaintiff testified her phone was mounted to the air vent and that it would provide guidance to the delivery location. The Defendant testified that Plaintiff passed him, failed to signal when changing lanes, and cut him off. After cutting him off, Plaintiff slammed on her brakes. The Defendant testified he took immediate evasive actions by cutting the steering wheel hard to the left and slamming on his brakes. A minor impact between Defendant's passenger side front bumper and the Plaintiff's driver's side rear bumper ensued. This damage was consistent with the Defendant's testimony.

The jury, comprised of of 4 women and 2 men deliberated for 48 minutes. The jury found that the Defendant did not proximately cause the motor vehicle collision. By answering "no" to the proximate cause jury question, the jurors did not have to deliberate on Plaintiff's alleged damages. 

September 26, 2023

Walker County, Texas (JP Precinct 3)

Milan represented the Defendant who rear ended the Plaintiff on IH-45 on June 7, 2022. Liability was not disputed at trial.  The estimate to repair the property damage to Plaintiff's vehicle totaled $255.77.  Pre-trial, Plaintiff's attorney demanded $30,000.00 to settle.  Plaintiff claimed he sustained neck, back, and a left knee injury. A total of $5,660.00 in chiropractic bills were submitted to the jury. At trial, Plaintiff's attorney asked the jury to return a verdict of at least $15,000.00. After deliberating for less than an hour, the jury awarded the Plaintiff $2,800.00, or less than 50% of their admitted medical bills. This jury award represents 9.33% of what Plaintiff asked for Pre-trial, and 19.2% of what the Plaintiff asked the jury to award at trial.

September 13, 2023

Dallas County, Texas (County Court at Law No. 4)

DEFENSE VERDICT - JURY AWARDS NOTHING

Milan represented both the Defendant (sued for negligence) and the Defendant's mother (sued for negligent entrustment)  as a result of a motor-vehicle accident on January 21, 2021. Plaintiff, who was 60 years old on the date of the loss, exited Interstate 35 at the Hebron Parkway/Round Grove Road exit in Dallas. Plaintiff claimed she was stopped for a red light at the next intersection when she was rear-ended by Defendant. Defendant claimed the Plaintiff swerved in front of him without signaling, causing him to strike the Plaintiff's passenger side rear bumper. After this initial impact, Defendant lost control, hit the guard rail to his right, and totaled  his car. Plaintiff took photos at the scene which were admitted into evidence. Milan argued that these photographs clearly showed that the accident could not have occurred as Plaintiff claimed. Prior to jury deliberations, the Plaintiff non-suited her negligent entrustment claims against Defendant's mother. After deliberating for one hour and ten minutes, the jury found the Plaintiff 70% negligent for the accident. Because her negligence was not less than 50%, Plaintiff did not recover anything. 

November 30, 2022

Harris County, Texas (295th District Court)

Milan represented the Defendant who was sued by the Plaintiff after an intersection collision in the city of Houston in 2020. The Plaintiff incurred past medical care expenses totaling $17,360.00 as follows:

• $7,610.00 in chiropractic care;
• $1,050.00 for an orthopedic consult;
• $8,070.00 for 3 MRI's.

Although liability was disputed pre-trial, Milan's client did not appear at trial and the case was tried with an empty chair. After a 1 day jury trial, the jury awarded the Plaintiff $7,060.00 in past medical care expenses after approximately 30 minutes of deliberations. The Plaintiff recovered only 40.66% of his incurred medical expenses. The jury additionally awarded the Plaintiff $5,000.00 in physical pain and suffering sustained in the past. The total jury award of $12,060 was $5,300 less than the Plaintiff's incurred medical expenses.

October 18, 2022

Harris County, Texas - Justice Court Precinct 2, Place 1

DEFENSE VERDICT - PLAINTIFF DEMANDED $8,000 - JURY AWARDS NOTHING

The Plaintiff, a used car dealer in doing business in Harris County, Texas sued an insurer under the policy's loss payee clause after the insured failed to cooperate with the insurer's investigation into the loss and no payment was made. Milan represented the insurer. The Plaintiff sued the insurer alleging violations of the Prompt Payment Statute and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. After deliberating for less than 15 minutes, the jury awarded the Plaintiff nothing. 

September 28, 2022

Galveston County, Texas - 405th District Court

DEFENSE VERDICT - PLAINTIFFS AWARDED NOTHING AFTER 3-DAY JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiffs brought this declaratory judgment action after the Texas Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision on May 21, 2021 that the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act could be utilized against insurers prior to a judicial determination of the tortfeasor's liability and insured's damages. See Allstate Insurance Company v. Daniel Wes Irwin.

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the defendant insurance company after a declaratory judgment action was filed by their insured (Plaintiff 1) and her passenger (Plaintiff 2). Plaintiff 1 and 2 were involved in a 2020 motor vehicle accident with an uninsured driver. Plaintiff 1, a 62-year old female, was previously injured in 2016 when she was struck by an 18-wheel tractor trailer while riding in a golf cart. In the 2016 accident, Plaintiff 1 sustained multi-level herniated discs in her cervical and lumbar spine and began receiving  social security disability as a result of that accident. At trial, the chiropractor who treated Plaintiff 1 for the 2020 accident involving the uninsured driver testified he: (a)  was unaware of the 2016 accident, (b) did not know about Plaintiff 1's pre-existing herniated discs, (c) did not review the 2016 MRI films, and (d) was unaware that his patient was receiving disability payments until the day of trial. Plaintiff 2, a 39-year old female, was a passenger in the vehicle who claimed back injuries. On her third visit to the chiropractor, Plaintiff 2 wrote that she had a "NEW INJURY AND/OR COMPLAINT" since her last visit. Plaintiff 2 described the  "NEW INJURY AND/OR COMPLAINT" as: "neck pain after Dr. popped neck."  Prior to this, Plaintiff claimed she was only treating for back pain. The chiropractor who "popped" Plaintiff 2's neck was designated as a responsible third party and included on the jury charge. The jury saw photographs of the alleged rear end impact between the uninsured driver and the Plaintiffs' vehicle. During the trial, both Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 were shown 5 photographs of their vehicle after the accident. Neither Plaintiff 1 nor Plaintiff 2 could point to any damage that the vehicle sustained. There was no police report, no EMS at the scene, and neither Plaintiff sought any medical treatment until 5-days after the accident. Pre-trial, each plaintiff demanded the uninsured motorist per person policy limits of $30,000.00 each. During closing arguments at trial, Plaintiff 1 asked for $10,623 in past medical expenses and asked the jury to award mental anguish sustained in the past; physical impairment sustained in the past; and physical pain sustained in the past. Plaintiff 2 asked for $9,303.00 in past medical expenses, and asked the jury to award mental anguish sustained in the past; physical impairment sustained in the past, and physical pain sustained in the past. The Plaintiffs' attorney asked for attorney's fees in the amount of $41,287.50 to be split equally between each Plaintiff. After a three-day trial, the jury consisting of 9 women and 3 men deliberated for less than 2 hours and determined (11-1) the uninsured driver was not negligent and did not proximately cause the  occurrence/injury in question. Because the uninsured driver was not negligent, the Plaintiffs received nothing. No attorney's fees were awarded.

May 22, 2022

Harris County, Texas - 269th District Court

DEFENSE VERDICT - PLAINTIFF AWARDED NOTHING AFTER BENCH TRIAL

Milan G. Marinkovich represented an independent insurance agency who was sued by a customer. Plaintiff's live pleading alleged violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Common Law Fraud, Negligence, Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and/or Management, and Breach of Contract. Plaintiff also requested exemplary damages. After a three hour bench trial, the Plaintiff was awarded nothing on his claims.

April 21, 2022

Harris County, Texas - Justice Court Precinct 8, Place 2

DEFENSE VERDICT - PLAINTIFFS DEMANDED $60,000.00 - JURY AWARDS NOTHING

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the Defendant. On October 21, 2020, Milan’s client was stopped immediately behind the Plaintiffs’ car. When the traffic light turned green, the Defendant released her brake pedal and rolled forward into the rear bumper of Plaintiffs' vehicle. After an adjustment was taken for unrelated prior damage to the same area of the rear bumper from a separate incident, the net cost of repairs to the Plaintiffs' vehicle was $263.95. Photographs of the minimal property damage, as well as the estimate to repair the rear bumper were offered and admitted into evidence. There were 4 passengers in Plaintiffs’ vehicle including a 2-month-old infant. The only person examined at the scene by EMS was the infant. The infant was not injured and not part of the lawsuit.  Both vehicles were driven from the scene.

Plaintiff 1, a 40-year-old female at the time of loss, began chiropractic treatment two days later on October 23, 2020. Her chiropractic treatment was at the facility treating Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3. Plaintiff 1 was also treating at this same facility on the date of the accident for an unrelated car accident that occurred months prior on May 6, 2020. On October 5, 2020, fifteen days before the October 21, 2020, accident with defendant, MRI’s were taken of Plaintiff’s cervical and lumbar spine. The MRI reports revealed multi-level cervical and lumbar disc herniations. The jury heard additional evidence that the chiropractor did not reference any of Plaintiff 1’s pre-existing cervical and lumbar disc herniations in her medical records for the accident with defendant. Plaintiff alleged neck and low back pain at trial.  In addition, Plaintiff 1’s medical records for the May 6, 2020, accident indicate that Plaintiff 1 was released from active care on November 6, 2020, after reaching maximum medical improvement. Plaintiff 1 submitted medical expenses totaling $9,989.00 of which $7,985.00 was for chiropractic treatment, $1,820 for an emergency room visit on 10/31/2021 (10-days post loss), and $184.00 for prescriptions.  

Plaintiff 2, a 22-year-old female, sought chiropractic treatment 13 days after the accident at the same facility treating Plaintiff 1 and 3. Plaintiff 2 submitted medical expenses totaling $10,760.45 of which $7,970.00 was for chiropractic treatment, $2,361.00 for an emergency room visit on 11/9/2020 (19-days post loss), and $429.45 for prescriptions.

Plaintiff 3, a 20-year-old female, sought chiropractic treatment 13 days after the accident at the same facility treating Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2. Plaintiff 3 submitted medical specials totaling $10,982.00 of which $7,840.00 was for chiropractic treatment, $2,882.00 for an emergency room visit on 11/9/2020 (19-days post loss), and $260.00 for prescriptions.  

Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 were college students. Both testified they would drive 3 hours round-trip to obtain their chiropractic treatment at the same facility treating Plaintiff 1. Prior to trial the Plaintiffs demanded $20,000.00 each ($60,000.00 total). Each Plaintiff was offered $2,000.00 as “nuisance value” to settle the case. The Plaintiffs’ rejected this offer and refused to negotiate from their $20,000.00 demand.  After deliberating for approximately 30 minutes, the unanimous jury (6-0) rendered a defense verdict and awarded the Plaintiffs nothing on their claims.  

February 8, 2022

Harris County, Texas - 113th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich represented The Galleria ("Mall") and the cleaning company in a slip and fall case occurring in the  Mall in Houston, Texas. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit claimed that while on the Mall premises on August 19, 2019, she entered the restroom and slipped  on an unknown substance,  sustaining  various personal injuries and damages as a result. After taking Plaintiff's deposition, Milan filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment on behalf of both clients. On February 8, 2022, the Court granted the no-evidence motions, dismissing the plaintiff's case with prejudice.

November 19, 2021 

Supreme Court of Texas No. 20-0964 

Pura-Flo Corporation, Petitioner vs. Donald Clanton, Respondent 

On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas

$50,000 Future-Damages Award against Our Client, Pura-Flo Corporation, is Reversed by the Texas Supreme Court.

Our firm did not represent Pura-Flo Corporation ("Pura-Flo") at trial and did not participate in the trial proceedings. On March 26, 2019, the trial court signed a judgment for Plaintiff, Donald Clanton in the amount of $69,500 in past and future damages as well as an award of $21,890 in attorneys fees. The $69,500 award represented $19,500 in past damages and $50,000 in future damages sustained by Clanton. 

• On April 9, 2019, Milan was designated as lead counsel for Pura-Flo for post-judgment proceedings and the appeal. 
• On April 22, 2019, Milan filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or, In the Alternative, Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, or, In the Alternative, Motion for New Trial on behalf of Pura-Flo. The pleading argued that the only damages proven at trial, other than a referenced to deprivation of income stream were damages suffered in the past. The pleading also asserted because the contract could be terminated by either party at will, Clanton was not entitled to future damages.
• On June 13, 2019, Milan filed Pura-Flo's Notice of Appeal which was docketed at 14-19-00479-CV. 
• On appeal to the 14th Court of Appeals, we challenged the jury's answer to the future damages question, and the award of $50,000.00 to Clanton. Our brief indicates: (1) the record discloses a complete lack of evidence on Clanton's future damages; (2) the court was barred by rules of law and of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove future damages; (3) the evidence offered to prove future damages was no more than a mere scintilla; and (4) the evidence established conclusively the absence of future damages,
• On August 27, 2020, in a 2-1 decision, the majority opinion from the 14th Court of Appeals disagreed with our arguments and concluded the evidence was legally sufficient to establish Clanton's future losses awarded by the jury in the amount of $50,000.
• On September 25, 2020, we filed a Motion for En Banc Consideration with the 14th Court of Appeals which was ultimately denied on October 27, 2020.
• On December 9, 2020, we filed a Petition for Review in the Texas Supreme Court on behalf of Pura-Flo. 
• On June 18, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court requested briefs on the merits.
• Pura-Flo's Brief on the Merits  was filed on July 14, 2021.
• On November 19, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the 14th Court of Appeals Judgment, writing in their Per Curiam opinion: "...no evidence supports the $50,000 amount awarded by the jury. Because both the fact and amount of future damages lacked reasonable certainty, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment."

April 14, 2021 

Harris County, Texas - 55th District Court

$67,048.50 Awarded to Milan's Client

Milan was again retained prior to trial, 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. Plaintiff sustained $16,748.50 in reasonable and necessary medical care expenses in the past for multi-level cervical disc herniations at C3-C4 and C6-C7. The amount of past medical expenses was not contested by the defendant. After refusing the Plaintiff's  reasonable demand for the $30,000.00 policy limits,  the Defendant's carrier offered $27,500.00 prior to jury selection. The Plaintiff  rejected this untimely offer, and proceeded to trial. Milan tried the case to a Harris County jury which deliberated for more than than 3 hours. Milan's client was awarded $67,048.50 as follows: (a) $16,748.50 for reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses in the past;(b) $7,500.00 for reasonable and necessary medical care expenses incurred in the future;(c) $13,000.00 for physical pain and suffering in the past;(d) $20,000.00 for physical pain and suffering in the future;(e) $600.00 for loss of earnings in the past;(f) $1,200.00 for loss of earning capacity in the future; and(g) $8,000.00 for mental anguish in the future;
The jury's award was more than double the insurer's policy limits, and $39,548.50 more than their last offer.  This is the second excess jury trial  verdict Milan has obtained for a Plaintiff in Harris County. 

December 18, 2020

Harris County, Texas - 190th District Court

Milan  G. Marinkovich represented The Galleria in a slip and fall case  occurring at The Galleria Mall in Houston, Texas (“Mall”). The  Plaintiff’s lawsuit claimed that while on the Mall premises, she slipped  and fell on a lime or liquid and sustained  various personal injuries and damages as a result. At the conclusion of pre-trial discovery, Milan filed a no-evidence and traditional motion for summary judgment. On December 18, 2020, the Court granted the traditional motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice.

December 17, 2020

Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas on appeal from Harris County, Texas, 334th District Court

In a 2-1 decision, the First District Court of Appeals affirmed the $300,000.00 awarded by the jury to Milan's client who was the victim of sexual assault in the February 20, 2019 case listed below. 

December 3, 2019
Harris County, Texas -  55th District Court

$111,845.00 Awarded to Milan's Client
Milan was retained prior to trial, 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 which deliberated for less than 3 hours. Milan's 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 Harris County, Texas in  2019.

APRIL 18, 2019

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

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. 

MARCH 7, 2019

Montgomery County, Texas - 284th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich represented two defendants who were alleged to have operated a home day care facility in a rental home. The Plaintiff alleged she fell on an unknown substance in the rental home, sustaining serious injuries. The Plaintiff filed suit under the theories of premises liability and gross negligence. After filing a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims.

FEBRUARY 20,  2019

Harris County, Texas - 334th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich represented both the mother as next friend of the minor child, as well as the minor child in an illicit sexual contact case. On August 25, 2013,  the mother dropped off the minor child (the "Minor"), a seven-year old girl,  at the defendant's home where he and his wife lived. The defendant's wife was a regular babysitter of the Minor. Later that day, the defendant unlawfully and intentionally assaulted the Minor by engaging in illicit sexual contact. By definition, a person commits an assault by illicit sexual contact by touching the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. The minor made an outcry later that evening to her mother, testifying that the defendant kissed her on the lips and fondled her vagina with his hand. Prior to the outcry, the Minor had already taken a shower and her clothes were laundered.  Thus, there was no DNA evidence available. During closing arguments, Milan asked for $250,000 as compensation for damages. After 2 days of testimony, a unanimous jury voted 12-0 finding that the defendant committed an assault against the minor. The jury awarded her $300,000.00 in damages.

FEBRUARY 8, 2019 

Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas on appeal from

Collin County, Texas, 366th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the security company at Stonebriar Centre Mall ("Mall") in Frisco, Texas. On the evening of March 4, 2015, a winter storm moved through North Texas causing temperatures to fall below freezing and turning rain into ice and snow.The Plaintiff's lawsuit alleged she sustained various personal injuries after a slip and fall accident on March 6, 2015 at the Mall. After the trial court granted Milan's summary judgment on behalf of the security company, the Plaintiff appealed to the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling ten issues that the Plaintiff raised on appeal. In addition, the appellate court awarded the security company their costs.

FEBRUARY 1, 2019

Harris County, Texas - 125th District Court

Milan  G. Marinkovich represented six named defendants in a slip and fall case  occurring at The Galleria Mall in Houston, Texas (“Mall”). The  Plaintiff’s lawsuit claimed that while on the Mall premises, she slipped  and fell in a puddle of standing water on the floor and sustained  various personal injuries and damages as a result. Plaintiff brought a  premises liability action for personal injuries resulting from  Defendants’ alleged negligence and gross negligence. Although the  Plaintiff’s Original Petition was timely filed on  April 24, 2018, (one  day before expiration of the statute of limitations), Plaintiff failed  to request citations for the named Defendants. The Plaintiff did not  request civil process for any of the defendants between April 24, 2018  and June 1, 2018 (a period of 39 days). Because the statute of  limitations expired on April 25, 2018, the Plaintiff’s request for  citations on June 1, 2018 was indisputably after the statute of  limitations expired. This untimeliness was fatal to Plaintiff’s claim.  The Texas Supreme Court previously held that a timely filed suit “will  not interrupt the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation.” Proulx v. Wells,  235 S.W.3d 213, 216, (Tex. 2007). A traditional motion for summary  judgment was filed based on this affirmative defense. On February 1,  2019, the trial court granted summary judgment as to all named  Defendants. The Court’s Order effectively dismissed the Plaintiff’s case  with prejudice.   Because the due-diligence issue was recognized early on in the litigation process, Milan’s clients benefited from significant savings in litigation expenses. 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2018   

Harris County, Texas - 234th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich represented the defendants in a premises  liability  lawsuit. The Plaintiff claimed various personal  injuries  arising out of an alleged slip and fall on or about March 19,  2016, at  The Galleria Mall, in Houston, Texas. After Milan filed both traditional and no evidence motions for summary judgment on behalf of   all named defendants, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims.

MARCH 7, 2018

Harris County, Texas - 113th District Court

MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUIT

• Rear-ender – Multiple Accident Lawsuit
• Verdict (P)  $7,000 ($3,500.00 from Defendant 1; and 

                 $3,500.00 from Defendant 2)

• Date: 3/7/2018

Facts & Allegations

Plaintiff, 49 and disabled since 2005, sued Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, for two separate low-speed rear-end accidents two and a half months apart. The dates of the two collisions were Sept. 19, 2013, and Dec. 4, 2013. Plaintiff claimed bodily injury and aggravation of previous injuries. Plaintiff’s wife was a passenger in the Plaintiff’s vehicle for both collisions and testified as a witness at trial, but did not claim injuries from either accident.  Plaintiff’s counsel argued to the jury that Plaintiff was easily injured by the low-speed impacts because of his pre-existing health conditions and thus, pursuant to the “eggshell Plaintiff” doctrine, the defendants were liable for past and future medical expenses, past and future physical pain and mental anguish, and past and future physical impairment to the tune of $300,000.

Defendant 1 did not dispute negligence, although Defendant 2 did. Defendant 1’s attorney, Milan G. Marinkovich, focused his argument on the extent of damages, pointing out that Plaintiff’s own medical records contradicted his claim he had no preexisting symptoms, as he was receiving hydrotherapy treatment for neck pain related to his rheumatoid arthritis two months before the first accident. Defendant 2’s attorney argued that Defendant 2’s foot slipping from the brake pedal when she sneezed was not within her control and did not constitute negligence. 

Injuries/Damages

Plaintiff claimed that the accident caused right shoulder bursitis and herniated discs at C3-4, C4-5 and C5-6 and that these injuries were aggravations of essentially asymptomatic, pre-existing arthritis and fibromyalgia. Defense counsel Marinkovich said Plaintiff “basically claimed to be an ‘eggshell Plaintiff,’ but in reality, was an ‘omelet’ which was scrambled well before either accident with these defendants.”  Defendant 2's counsel suggested that, for the Defendant 2 accident, if the jury reached damages, it should award $3,500 for past medical bills; $500 to $1,000 for past physical pain and mental anguish; and nothing else. Defendant 1's counsel suggested the same amounts for the Defendant 1 accident.

Result The jury found that Defendant 1's negligence proximately caused her accident and that Defendant 2's negligence proximately caused hers. The jury followed the defense attorneys’ suggestion and awarded Plaintiff $7,000 total.

Plaintiff

$3,500 past medical expenses from first collision

$3,500 past medical expenses from second collision

Pretrial Demands

• $500,000 (Stowers) as to Defendant 2
• Policy limits as to Defendant 1

Pretrial Offers

• $7,400.00 by Defendant 1
• $3,500 by Defendant 2

Trial Details

• Trial Length: 3 days
• Jury Deliberations: 1 hour
• Jury Poll: 10-2

Plaintiff’s Demographics

• Age: 49
• Occupation: disabled
• Gender: Male
• Married: Yes

AUGUST 23, 2017   

Harris County, Texas - 61st District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a favorable jury trial verdict in Harris County, Texas in a personal injury (automobile accident) case filed by two Plaintiffs. Milan stipulated that his client was liable for the motor vehicle accident but argued that his client was not liable for the bodily injuries alleged by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff #1 submitted $19,067.90 in admissible medical specials, including an epidural steroid injection ("ESI") at C6-C7. Although the jury awarded Plaintiff #1 her medical specials, she did not receive anything for past physical pain. Plaintiff #2 submitted $20,505.27 in admissible medical specials, including a bilateral ESI at L4-L5. The jury awarded him $1,660.50 for past medical care expenses and nothing for past physical pain. The combined jury award represents a recovery of only 52.38% of the Plaintiffs' admissible medical specials.     

MAY 31, 2017
Harris County, Texas - 234th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a take-nothing judgment in Harris County, Texas in a personal injury (automobile accident) case where Plaintiff claimed low back (L4-L5; L5-S1) injuries requiring an epidural steroid injection (ESI). At trial, Plaintiff requested reimbursement of her medical bills totaling $34,966.70 and an additional $10,000.00 for physical pain and suffering sustained in the past. After deliberating for only 40 minutes, the jury by a 10-2 vote, determined the Plaintiff was negligent and 100% responsible for the accident. Because the jury determined the Plaintiff was 100% responsible, the Plaintiff recovered nothing.

MAY 23, 2017

Harris County, Texas - 269th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a take-nothing judgment in Harris County, Texas in a personal injury (automobile accident) case where Plaintiff claimed neck and low back (L5-S1) injuries. Despite the jury finding that the negligence of Milan’s client proximately caused the accident, the jury awarded the Plaintiff nothing for physical pain sustained in the past, nothing for physical impairment in the past and nothing for reasonable expenses of necessary medical care incurred in the past. 

Plaintiff alleged medical expenses totaling $17,505.00:

• Chiropractic Care: $6,835.00

• MRI Imaging: $2,450.00

• Epidural Steroid Injection L5-S1: $7,620.00

• Clinic Fee (ESI): $600.00

During Plaintiff’s deposition, it was discovered that he treated with the same chiropractor for a previous accident (only months prior to this loss) and that this prior accident (with similar injuries to the neck and low back) was never disclosed to Plaintiff’s pain management doctor. The pain management doctor was presented via videotaped deposition where he conceded that he became aware of the Plaintiff’s prior accident only three weeks before the trial and was not aware of it when he treated the Plaintiff. In addition, the pain management doctor agreed with the defense that Plaintiff’s pre-existing and chronic condition of bilateral foraminal stenosis could be the source of Plaintiff’s low-back pain.

At trial, Milan argued the bills for Plaintiff’s chiropractic care were not admissible because a controverting affidavit was timely filed by the defense and the Plaintiff’s “pain management” doctor was not properly qualified to testify about the reasonableness of the chiropractic bills. The Judge agreed with the defense’s argument and the entire $6,835.00 in chiropractic care was excluded at trial. The admissible medical expenses submitted to the jury totaled $10,670.00. Plaintiff requested an additional $10,670 for physical pain and $10,670 for physical impairment, for a  total of $32,010.00.  After a 1 ½ - day trial, the Jury awarded absolutely nothing for the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

MARCH 30, 2017

Harris County, Texas - 234th District Court 

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a favorable jury trial verdict in Harris County, Texas in a personal injury (automobile accident) case filed by two Plaintiffs and three minor children ages 4, 3, and 2. Milan stipulated that his client, who was distracted and proceeded through a red light at an intersection, was liable for the motor vehicle accident. However, Milan argued that his client was not liable for the bodily injuries alleged by the Plaintiffs. 

Following the accident on December 29, 2013, Plaintiff #1, a 41-year old male, alleged lower back and neck pain, shoulder pain and knee pain. After undergoing both cervical and lumbar MRI’s, Plaintiff #1 was diagnosed with disc herniation’s at C5-C6 (1.5 mm) and C6-C7 (1mm) and a disc herniation at L5-S1 (4 mm). Plaintiff #1 received a recommendation from an orthopedic surgeon for a 2-level bilateral transforaminal ESI (epidural steroid injection). 

Plaintiff #1’s Claim for Damages

Plaintiff #1’s past medical expenses totaled $13,560.00. His future medical expenses consisted of a 2-level bilateral transforaminal ESI at an estimated cost of $14,000.00. Plaintiff #1 requested $27,560.00 in economic damages. Plaintiff #1 also demanded $8,000.00 for physical impairment sustained in the past, $4,000.00 for physical impairment in the future, $8,000.00 for physical pain and suffering in the past and $4,000.00 for physical pain and suffering in the future. He also requested property damage compensation for the difference in market value, if any, between the market value in Harris County, Texas of his vehicle that was damaged, immediately before the occurrence and immediately after. Plaintiff #1 asked the jury to award him at least $51,560.00.

Plaintiff #2, a 30-year old female, alleged low back pain. She had a lumbar MRI taken post-loss which revealed a broad based posterior protrusion-subligamentous disc herniation at L5-S1 (2.8 mm). 

Plaintiff #2’s Claim for Damages

Plaintiff #2’s past medical expenses totaled $10,090.00. Plaintiff #2 requested $10,090.00 in economic damages. Plaintiff #2 also demanded $8,000.00 for physical impairment sustained in the past, $4,000.00 for physical impairment in the future, $8,000.00 for physical pain and suffering in the past and $4,000.00 for physical pain and suffering in the future. Plaintiff #2 asked the jury to award her at least $34,900.00.

Minors’ Claims for Damages

Child #1 (Age 2) incurred $1,580.00 in admissible past medical expenses.

Child #2 (Age 4) incurred $2,015.01 in admissible past medical expenses.

Child #3 (Age 3) incurred $2,060.00 in admissible past medical expenses.

After deliberating for 3 ½ hours, the jury award was as follows:

Plaintiff #1:

• 9,325.00 in past medical expenses. This was $4,235.00 less than his admissible medical specials.

• $1,200.00 in physical pain and suffering in the past. This was $6,800.00 less than what he demanded at trial.

The jury did not award Plaintiff #1 anything on his claims for medical expenses in the future, physical impairment in the past, physical impairment in the future, and physical pain and suffering in the future. Despite the liability stipulation, the jury did not award anything on the property damage claim for the alleged damage that the car sustained.

Plaintiff #2:

• $6,475.00 in past medical expenses. This was $3,615.00 less than her admissible medical specials.

• $1,200.00 in physical pain and suffering in the past. This was also $6,800.00 less than what she demanded at trial.

The jury did not award Plaintiff #2 anything on her claims for medical expenses in the future, physical impairment in the past, physical impairment in the future, and physical pain and suffering in the future.

Child #1 was awarded $785.00 in past medical expenses ($795.00 less than the admissible specials) and $150.00 for physical pain and suffering in the past.

Child #2 was awarded $895.00 in past medical expenses ($1,200.00 less than the admissible medical specials) and $150.00 for physical pain and suffering in the past.

Child #3 was awarded $865.00 for medical expenses in the past ($1,195.00 less than the admissible medical specials) and $150.00 for physical pain and suffering in the past.

Plaintiff #1’s jury award was $41,035.00 less than his trial demand.

Plaintiff #2’s jury award was $27,225.00 less than her trial demand.

FEBRUARY 2017

Harris County, Texas - 55th District Court 

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a favorable jury trial verdict in Harris County, Texas in a personal injury (automobile accident) case filed by two Plaintiffs and a minor child. Plaintiff #1, a 36-year old male, alleged lower back and neck pain following an accident in December 2014. Plaintiff #1 was diagnosed with disc herniations at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5.  In addition to receiving a recommendation for L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 medial branch blocks, Plaintiff #1 received a surgical recommendation for an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C5-C6 and C6-C7 with an estimated cost of $216,332.51.  He additionally received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) at L4-L5 prior to trial. His past medical expenses totaled $30,034.00. Pre-trial, Plaintiff #1 demanded $1,232,000.00 to settle.

Plaintiff #2, a 41-year old female, had an MRI taken post-loss which revealed cervical disc herniations at C3-C4, C4-C5, and C5-C6. She was also diagnosed with disc protrusions at L5-S1, C6-C7, and C7-T1. Plaintiff #2 received a surgical recommendation for a posterior lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1 at an estimated cost of $188,275.00. She also received two epidural steroid injections (ESIs) at C5-C6 and L5-S1 prior to trial. Her past medical expenses totaled $35,597.78. Pre-trial, Plaintiff #2 demanded $250,000.00.

At trial, both adult Plaintiffs requested at least $250,000.00. In addition, they asked the jury to award them damages for medical care expenses incurred in the past, medical care expenses in the future, physical pain sustained in the past, physical pain sustained in the future, mental anguish in the past, mental anguish in the future, physical impairment in the past, and physical impairment in the future. 

After deliberating for 2 ½ hours, the jury only awarded $21,101.00 to Plaintiff #1 and $20,826.00  to Plaintiff #2 for medical care expenses incurred in the past. The jury awarded nothing on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. The jury awarded the minor child $195.00 in past medical expenses and $500.00 for past physical pain. 

Plaintiff #1 was awarded $8,933 less than his incurred medical specials while Plaintiff #2 was awarded $14,771.78 less than her incurred medical specials.

October 2016

Dallas County, Texas -  162nd District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a favorable jury trial verdict in Dallas County, Texas in a personal injury (automobile accident) lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged disc protrusions at  L4-L5 and L5-S1 as a result of the accident. At the time of trial, Plaintiff’s admissible medical specials were $12,469.00.  Plaintiff requested additional compensation for medical care in the future, physical pain and mental anguish sustained in the past and physical pain and mental anguish she will in reasonable probability sustain in the future. After a 2 day trial, the jury deliberated for almost three (3) hours and awarded Plaintiff nothing on her claim for medical care expenses in the future, as well as nothing on her claim for physical pain and mental anguish in the future. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $1,246.90 for past medical care expenses and $700.00 for past physical pain and mental anguish, for a total judgment of only $1,946.90. This final jury award was $10,522.10 less than the Plaintiff's admissible medical expenses.

June 2016

Harris County, Texas - 269th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a favorable jury trial verdict in Harris County, Texas in a personal injury (automobile accident) lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff. Pre-trial, Plaintiff demanded $25,000.00 for alleged injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on June 3, 2014. Plaintiff alleged a disc herniation at C3-C4 and disc bulges at C4-C5 and C5-C6. At trial, Plaintiff’s admissible medical specials were $14,456.66. Plaintiff requested additional compensation for physical pain in the past and future and reasonable medical care incurred in the past. The jury deliberated for a little over two (2) hours and awarded Plaintiff nothing on his claim for physical pain sustained in the past as well as nothing for his claim for physical pain in the future. The jury awarded Plaintiff $11,210.96 for past medical care, which was $3,245.70 less than his admitted medical specials and $13,789.04 less than his pre-trial demand.

May 2016

Harris County, Texas

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a defense verdict in Harris County, Texas in a property damage lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff. At trial, Plaintiff conceded she was the only party with a stop sign and that she entered the intersection without seeing the Defendant's vehicle. 

February 2015

Harris County, Texas, 334th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a favorable jury trial verdict in Harris County, Texas for his client, PrimeFlight Aviation Services, Inc. (“PrimeFlight”),  a wheelchair service provider at Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) . The Plaintiffs’ live pleading demanded between $500,000.00 and $1,000,000.00 in damages. The matter involved the alleged negligent transport of the Plaintiff in a wheelchair. The Plaintiff, who was blind, was accidentally tipped out of the wheelchair at an elevator by an employee of PrimeFlight. Plaintiff’s husband also made a loss of consortium claim. Milan admitted liability at trial and argued the case on damages. After a three day trial, the jury deliberated for a little over two (2) hours and awarded the Plaintiff $3,000.00. Plaintiff’s  husband received nothing on his loss of consortium claim. 

August 2014

Harris County, Texas -  334th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a favorable pre-trial ruling for his client, a major airline carrier, in a premises liability case filed in Harris County, Texas. The matter involved the alleged negligent transport of the Plaintiff in a wheelchair by a third-party contractor and an allegedly defective elevator at Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) in Houston, Texas. The trial Court granted the major airline carrier's no-evidence motion for summary judgment.

July 2013

Tarrant County, Texas - 67th District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a favorable pre-trial ruling for his clients in a premises liability case filed in Tarrant County, Texas. This case involved an alleged slip-and-fall by the Plaintiff at the Grapevine Mills Mall. Prior to filing the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Milan successfully argued to have ten (10) of the Plaintiff’s expert witnesses excluded from testifying at trial. The Court ultimately granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (both No evidence and Traditional) and dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.

June 2013

Tarrant County, Texas - 141st District Court

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a dismissal with prejudice in Tarrant County, Texas of a lawsuit filed against his client, Service Management Systems, Inc. The dismissal with prejudice precludes plaintiff from re-filing her case against this client. Plaintiff alleged the client was in control of all of the elevators at the Ridgmar Mall, and that an allegedly defective elevator caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Early analysis of the plaintiff’s petition revealed the client was not responsible for elevator maintenance. This early action saved the client thousands of dollars in pre-trial discovery and litigation costs.

May 2013

Nueces County, Texas

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a dismissal with prejudice in Nueces County, Texas of a lawsuit filed against two of his clients, a security company and its director of security. The dismissal with prejudice prohibits the plaintiffs from re-filing their case against these clients. Plaintiffs alleged false imprisonment, assault & battery by offensive physical contact and bystander mental anguish.

February 2013

Harris County, Texas

Milan G. Marinkovich obtained a dismissal without prejudice in Harris County, Texas of a subrogation case filed against two of his clients, a trucking company and its driver. Plaintiff alleged the trucking company negligently entrusted its vehicle to the driver, and that the company’s driver was negligent. Additional research revealed that the plaintiff was the only party who received a traffic citation at the scene of the accident, and prior to the lawsuit being filed, the plaintiff pled guilty to making an unsafe lane change.