Herriott v. Grand Strand Regional Medical Center ( 2011 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Phillip Herriott, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sheila D. Herriott, Deceased, Appellant,

v.

Hospital Corporation of America, Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, Carolina Health Specialists, and George Sandoz, M.D., Defendants,

Of whom Grand Strand Regional Medical Center is the Respondent.

---

Appeal From Horry County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-123 
Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed March 24, 2011

---

AFFIRMED

---

Tucker S. Player, of Columbia; and Geoffrey H. Waggoner, of Mount Pleasant, for Appellant.

Monteith P. Todd and John C. Bradley, both of Columbia; and David H. Batten and Randolph L. Lee, both of Raleigh, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Phillip Herriott, as personal representative of the Estate of Sheila Herriott, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate, amend, or modify an order granting partial summary judgment to Grand Strand Regional Medical Center.   Herriott contends he was entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), SCRCP.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Stearns Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Glenwood Falls, LP, 373 S.C. 331, 342, 644 S.E.2d 793, 798 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The general rule undoubtedly is that the neglect of the attorney is the neglect of the client, and that no mistake, inadvertence or neglect attributable to the attorney can be successfully used as a ground for relief, unless it would have been excusable if attributable to the client.  The acts and omissions of the attorney in such case are those of the client."); see also Gainey v. Gainey, 382 S.C. 414, 431, 675 S.E.2d 792, 801 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[L]ack of fairness is not a ground for relief under Rule 60(b), SCRCP."); Saro Invs. v. Ocean Holiday P'ship, 314 S.C. 116, 125, 441 S.E.2d 835, 841 (Ct. App. 1994) (holding Rule 60(b)(1) "is an improper vehicle for obtaining a modification of a final judgment based on . . . a mistaken understanding of the law"). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.