1. Home
  2. Amicus Briefs
  3. Land v. Whitley, et al.

Land v. Whitley, et al.

https://www.toddlawoffices.com/

Elizabeth Todd

Founder, Todd Law Offices

Elizabeth Todd graduated from the University of Wake Forest School of Law in 1996. She has practiced all over the state of North Carolina representing families in domestic court, corporations in bankruptcy course, defendants in criminal court, and, finally, families against insurance companies and nursing home chains. She was representing clients in court before she even got out of law school – having the opportunity to work for Legal Services of North Carolina representing the poor in Charlotte during her summers in law school. 

Since 2000, Todd has devoted her practice to representing victims of nursing home abuse and neglect against insurance companies and nursing home and assisted living chains. At a time when most lawyers rejected these cases as not worth pursuing, Todd recognized the need to protect the frail elderly in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. 

https://www.brownmoorelaw.com/

Matthew Berthold

Matthew has been a trial attorney since 2013 when he began practicing at his father’s firm in his hometown of Charleston, West Virginia. Growing up around the legal practice, Matthew was ingrained with the struggle that families suffering catastrophic injuries or deaths had to endure every day, and raised with the empathy and passion to relentlessly fight to obtain justice on behalf of the people.

Now with Brown, Moore & Associates, PLLC, Matthew concentrates his practice on all forms of medical malpractice, wrongful death, physician and medical staff sexual misconduct, birth injuries, traumaticbrain injuries, catastrophic personal injuries, and mass litigation.

Matthew continues to represent victims and their families throughout all of North Carolina, litigating cases both large and small. He is passionate about fighting for every client, no matter the size of the case, to ensure that they are treated fairly, with respect, and to obtain the best possible outcome. Matthew is a firm believer that all catastrophic injury victims deserve the highest quality legal representation. Through hard work and thoughtful representation, Matthew provides his clients with a legal experience without the stress and worry that many litigants face, while still achieving the results his clients deserve.

During his time as a trial attorney, Matthew has advocated as lead attorney in successfully litigating cases to jury verdict, through arbitration, as well as obtaining over $30 million dollars in settlements for his clients. Matthew also had the honor of serving as co-lead and/or liaison counsel in Mass Litigation cases before the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel.

Prior to practicing law, Matthew completed his undergraduate education at the University of Kentucky and went on to work in the NBA for the Los Angeles Clippers. During his time in the Clippers Communications Department, Matthew worked closely with the Clippers Vice President of Communications, as well as the Los Angeles media, on a variety of team and media relations and publications. After working in Los Angeles, Matthew went on to the West Virginia University College of Law where he received his Juris Doctorate degree. Outside of his practice of law, Matthew is a proud husband and father, residing in Charlotte with his wife, son, and their dog.

https://www.brownmoorelaw.com/

Jenny Maynard

Brown Moore & Associates, PLLC,

Jennifer “Jenny” Maynard is a personal injury attorney who focuses her practice on helping those injured in motor vehicle collisions and on the premises of negligently kept property. She attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where she majored in American History and Political Science, and minored in Spanish. Pursuing her interest in medical treatment, she shadowed doctors in high school and spent many summers before law school at a personal injury firm. She earned her law degree from Wake Forest University School of Law. 

Case Link View Now
Opinion Filed October 17, 2025
Attorney for the Case Bruce Berger MaryAnne Hamilton
Amicus Brief Writers Elizabeth Todd Matthew Berthold Jenny Maynard
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 71PA24

Plaintiffs filed suit for medical malpractice which occurred during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under the Health Care Liability Protection for Emergency or Disaster Act (“EDTPA”). The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and Defendants appealed.

NCAJ filed an amicus brief which clarified the proper procedures and standards under the EDTPA. The limited, qualified immunity provided by the Act is an affirmative defense. Accordingly, any defendant wishing to take advantage of this qualified immunity must prove all three elements set forth in the statute, including, critically, that the health care in question was directly or indirectly affected by COVID-19. As the burden is on the defense to prove these elements, dismissal pursuant to Rule 12 would not be proper. Moreover, the Act specifically excludes claims for gross negligence. Therefore, no dismissal is proper where gross negligence is adequately pled. Finally, the interlocutory denial of the motion to dismiss pursuant to the EDTPA does not affect a substantial right, and the appeal should be dismissed.

UPDATE: After a unanimous opinion in Plaintiffs’ favor in the Court of Appeals, Defendants filed a petition for discretionary review, which was granted. NCAJ provided an amicus brief in the Supreme Court just as it had in the Court of Appeals. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court substantially agreed with Plaintiffs and NCAJ. The Court held that the statute did not provide immunity from suit, which prevents a defendant from being brought into court at all. Instead, it provides conditional immunity from liability based on factual inquiries. Although denial of a motion to dismiss based upon immunity from suit affects a substantial right and is immediately appealable, denial of a motion to dismiss based upon immunity from liability does not affect a substantial right. Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory. Importantly, the Court reasoned and held as follows: “Given that the General Assembly predicated immunity from liability on fact-heavy determinations like whether the defendant acted in good faith or whether the services were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, it follows logically that the General Assembly did not intend to create an immunity from being brought into court entirely.” As a practical matter, this means that defendants should not be able to obtain pre-discovery dismissals as many across the State have sought, but that they must satisfy the “fact-heavy determinations” required by the statute.