High Court’s Reasoning
The justices declined to consider the defendants’ arguments on the merits, instead ruling that the appeal itself was improper. They explained that the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act provides only a conditional immunity—a defense against liability—rather than a blanket immunity from litigation.
Because this immunity depends on fact-intensive questions—such as whether the provider acted in good faith or whether the pandemic affected the care—the legislature likely intended for such issues to be resolved during trial or summary judgment, not through early dismissal.
The opinion also rejected the defendants’ contention that the denial of their motion implicated the trial court’s jurisdiction, finding that the immunity at issue does not deprive courts of authority to hear such cases.
“The defendants may still raise the immunity defense at summary judgment, trial, or on appeal after final judgment,” the justices wrote.
Representation and Case Information
Attorneys for the parties could not be reached for comment Friday.
Plaintiff Doris Griffin Land is represented by Bruce W. Berger and MaryAnne M. Hamilton of Miller Law Group PLLC.
Defendants are represented by W. Gregory Merritt of Harris Creech Ward & Blackerby PA, Kelsey Heino of Hall Booth Smith PC, and Matthew W. Sawchak, Erik R. Zimmerman, and Ethan White of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson PA.
The case is Land et al. v. Whitley et al., Case No. 71PA24, in the North Carolina Supreme Court.
