- Administrative Practice and Governmental Affairs
- Appellate Practice
- Automotive Dealers
- Bankruptcy and Creditor Rights
- Commercial Real Estate
- Commercial, Complex, and Class Action Litigation
- Construction Law
- Corporate and Business Practice
- Corporate/Public Finance and Securities Law
- Economic Development
- Education
- Environmental Law
- Estate Planning and Probate
- Federal, State and Local Taxation
- Financial Services
- Foreclosure, Real Estate and Commercial Loan Workouts
- Healthcare (Business and Regulatory)
- Healthcare and Medical Liability
- Insurance Defense and Coverage Law
- Intellectual Property
- Labor and Employment Law
- Media Law
- Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Mergers, Acquisitions, and Dispositions of Businesses
- Nonprofit and Tax Exempt Organizations
- Pharmaceutical, Biologic, and Medical Device Litigation
- Products Liability
- Professional Liability and Licensure Matters
- Tax Credits
- Utility and Energy Law

Defense Verdict Achieved in Radiology Case
Tommy Keene and Grant Sexton received a defense verdict on behalf of their radiology client in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant misidentified a liver tumor which, in turn, delayed treatment for liver cancer by one year. The tumor was classified as a benign hemangioma by the radiologist when, in fact, it turned out to be hepatocellular cancer. The one-year delay allowed the tumor to double in size and spread to both lobes of the liver. Thus, the Plaintiff alleged that the patient was deprived of a surgical cure for her liver cancer. When the cancer was diagnosed, the patient received chemotherapy and other therapy but was no longer a surgical candidate nor a liver transplant candidate. She died from her disease, and the wrongful death suit followed.
At trial, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to return a ten-million-dollar verdict. The jury returned a defense verdict even though the Defendant radiologist acknowledged in hindsight that he should have at least recommended further testing and should not have classified the tumor as a benign hemangioma.