Blanco v. Barton—How MDJW Secured a Landmark Victory Upholding Jury Discretion

On May 1, 2025, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued an en banc opinion in  Blanco v. Barton, affirming a take-nothing judgment in a low-speed auto accident case. Trial attorney Shane Osborn and appellate partner Levon Hovnatanian successfully defended the case through verdict and appeal, helping reshape Texas law on the weight of subjective medical testimony. Their work led to a victory that reenforces jury discretion over subjective injury claims.

In February 2020, Yanier Vega Blanco and Karla Chicas De Perez sued Dennis Julius Barton after a rear-end collision on Interstate 10 in Houston. Alleging neck and back pain, they sought damages for treatments like chiropractic care and spinal injections, backed by two doctors’ testimony. Shane Osborn led the defense in the 157th District Court, facing a plaintiff-friendly narrative. The jury, however, found no compensable injuries, splitting negligence 50-50 and issuing a take-nothing verdict. The plaintiffs appealed, claiming the evidence demanded damages, but Levon Hovnatanian's appellate work secured a unanimous affirmation.

The Trial Strategy: Unpaid Bills, Inflated Claims, and Cross-Examination
Plaintiffs claimed ongoing neck and back pain, supported by treating doctors. But Shane’s cross-examination revealed that:

• Medical bills were unpaid, and plaintiffs gave no testimony they intended to pay them.
• Delayed treatment and travel (they went to Louisiana post-accident) undermined injury claims.
• Plaintiffs were involved in subsequent accidents, and one gave inconsistent testimony about where the pain started.

Shane defended against the claims arising from a low-speed rear-end collision in stop-and-go traffic. Plaintiffs delayed medical treatment, had prior and subsequent accidents, and received extensive care for neck and back pain. Shane’s strategy highlighted inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ own reports and uncovered that their medical bills were entirely unpaid—and significantly inflated compared to market norms. The jury found equal fault but awarded zero damages.

Shane’s trial approach was a masterclass in dismantling weak claims. A pivotal moment came during discovery, when he fought to uncover the actual amounts medical providers collected versus the plaintiffs’ billed amounts. “The billed figures were dramatically higher than what providers accepted,” Shane notes, “suggesting inflated claims for litigation.” This aligned with Texas law limiting damages to “paid or incurred” expenses as well as what a provider actually receives when a medical bill is paid. By presenting this disparity, Shane neutralized the expert testimony and convinced the jury that no compensable damages were owed—even with a 50/50 negligence split.

The Appeal: Jury’s Right to Disbelieve Subjective Claims
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued the no-damages finding defied the evidence. Levon Hovnatanian's appellate brief countered that the jury rightfully exercised discretion over subjective injuries, given the minor crash, delayed treatment, and alternative causes. The Fourteenth Court, sitting en banc, agreed, overruling Jefferson v. Parra, which had suggested juries must accept uncontradicted expert testimony. Levon's advocacy cemented a precedent that bolsters defenses in low-impact cases. Plaintiffs argued that the jury had to accept their experts’ conclusions. Levon rebutted this, citing McGalliard and related cases. The en banc court agreed:

“The jury was free to disregard the testifying experts’ testimony on both the necessity of treatment and the causal relationship between the accident and the appellants’ complaints."

When the plaintiffs appealed, Levon's appellate advocacy ensured the verdict’s affirmation. The court overruled a prior decision Jefferson v. Parra, reinforcing juries’ discretion to reject subjective injury claims. This ruling strengthens defenses in low-impact collision cases, offering new leverage for insurers and defendants.

This victory showcases our dual expertise: Shane’s trial tenacity in uncovering game-changing evidence and Levon's appellate skill in securing lasting precedent. For insurers, corporations, and defendants, we offer a proven partner to navigate complex personal injury cases. As Shane puts it, “our job is to protect clients from exaggerated claims, and this case shows how we deliver.”

You can read the decision here: Opinion