Herriott v. Grand Strand Regional Medical Center

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Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-123 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.