Kent Francis is a shareholder in the firm’s Memphis office.  He focuses his litigation practice primarily on healthcare liability defense, commercial transportation, and general liability actions.  He regularly defends wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases.  He is a member of the firm’s rapid response team and frequently assists motor carriers with accident investigation and evaluation.  Mr. Francis also represents insurance carriers in first-party actions brought by insureds related to coverage matters, claims of breach of contract and bad faith, and extra-contractual matters.  He advises small businesses on operations and disputes.  Mr. Francis is Tennessee counsel for a multinational rideshare company.

Mr. Francis practices in state and federal court in Tennessee and Arkansas.  He has tried civil matters to defense verdicts.  He has also achieved successful results for his clients through dispositive motions, mediation, and on appeal.  Mr. Francis serves on the firm’s recruitment committee and is responsible for interviewing and hiring candidates for the firm’s summer associate program.  He also serves on the firm’s strategic planning committee.

AFFILIATIONS

• Memphis Bar Association
• Tennessee Bar Association
• Trucking Industry Defense Association (TIDA)

PROFESSIONAL HONORS AND ACTIVITIES

• Mid-South Super Lawyers® – Professional Liability Defense
• Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America™  –  Health Care Law
• Fellow, Memphis Bar Foundation
• Memphis ADR Inn of Court
  • Barrister member
• New Memphis Fellow, Class of 2023
• Leo Bearman, Sr. American Inn of Court
  • Associate member, 2017-2020
• Memphis Area Legal Services
  • Volunteer, Saturday Legal Clinic
  • Cabinet member, Equal Justice Young Lawyers Committee, 2018-2020
• Tennessee Bar Association
  • Member
  • West Tennessee Governor
  • Mentoring Program
  • District 14 Representative, Young Lawyers Division, 2020-2022
  • Sponsorship, Meetings & Awards Coordinator, Young Lawyers Division, 2019-2020
  • Sponsorship Coordinator, Young Lawyers Division, 2018-2019
• Memphis Bar Association
  • Member
• Tennessee Law Review, Articles Editor, 2013-2015

REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS

• Obtained a defense verdict in a wrongful death healthcare liability trial.  The plaintiff alleged that a urology clinic’s staff members failed to document and forward clinical complaints, which caused the patient’s death.  After four days of trial, the court awarded a directed verdict at the close of all proof, finding that the plaintiff could not carry her burden of proving that the staff members deviated from the applicable standard of care or caused the patient’s death.  The verdict was not appealed.
• Obtained a defense verdict in a healthcare liability matter.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendant surgeon improperly performed a hernia repair surgery on her in May of 2019.  Following a six-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant surgeon, finding that he did not deviate from the standard of care.
• Obtained a defense verdict in a healthcare liability matter in which he represented an OB/GYN in a case involving a fetal death at 37 weeks gestation.  Following a seven-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that our client complied with the standard of care in his treatment of the baby’s mother.
• Prevailed in the Tennessee Court of Appeals in healthcare liability matter.  The trial court denied a motion to dismiss after finding that extraordinary cause existed to excuse the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121 before filing suit.  After full briefing and oral argument, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling, finding that extraordinary cause did not exist.  The case was remanded to the trial court and dismissed.   The plaintiff then appealed the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiff did not substantially comply with the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121.  After two rounds of briefing and oral argument, the Tennessee Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff did not substantially comply with the statute and affirmed the dismissal.

Read Less