Backman v. Medical University of South Carolina

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Sammy L. Backman, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Antwon D. Chavis, a minor child and as Father and Next of Kin, Appellant, v. Medical University of South Carolina, Respondent. Appeal From Charleston County A. Victor Rawl, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-079 Submitted February 1, 2005 – Filed February 4, 2005 AFFIRMED Louis S. Moore, of Charleston, for Appellant. Elliott T. Halio and Andrew S. Halio, both of Charleston, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: AppellantSammy L. Backman filed this medical malpractice action in April 1990. By consent order dated December 5, 1990, the parties agreed that the action was “ended and discontinued in accordance with Rule 40(c)(3) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure with leave for Plaintiff’s counsel to bring a new action or actions within thirty (30) days from the date of the hearing held on December 3, 1990.” In 1995, Rule 40(c)(3) was replaced by Rule 40(j). Backman filed a motion to restore in November 2001. The circuit court denied the motion to restore, and Backman appeals. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authority: Graham v. Dorchester County Sch. Dist., 339 S.C. 121, 528 S.E.2d 80 (Ct. App. 2000). AFFIRMED. HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.