Trial Lawyer - 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.  Litigators conduct pre-trial discovery, file motions, and attend mediation where the case usually settles. Do you really want your important case used as a "learning experience" for a law firm's inexperienced associate if your case requires a jury trial? 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,  jury verdicts should be an important metric when deciding on a trial lawyer to handle your case. Our consistent results  speak volumes:

 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 non-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

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

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.