Charleston woman cites 'mental stress,' health for dismissing suit against Putnam dentist

WINFIELD - Citing the mental stress it caused her, a Charleston woman has dropped her lawsuit against a Putnam County dentist.

Putnam Circuit Judge O.C. "Hobby" Spaulding on March 10 granted a motion filed by Gertraud Mangold that her breach of contract suit against Dr. Sami Ghareeb, of Poca, be withdrawn. In her motion -- which came in the from of a handwritten request -- filed the same day, Mangold, 79, cited the aggravation in bringing the case to court, and her health, as reasons for her dismissal.

"I want to drop the above case due to my physical limitations," Mangold wrote. "This has caused me much mental stress and worry, and I no longer want to pursue it."

Records show Mangold first filed suit against Ghareeb,65, in Putnam Magistrate Court on Jan. 28. In her complaint, Mangold alleged nine days earlier Ghareeb "installed four porcelain crowns that did not come close to matching existing teeth."

Ghareeb, Mangold claims, first said he would replace the crowns at no cost, "but later refused to do so." As damages, Mangold sought $3,800 -- $950 for each crown -- plus $95 in court costs.

Ghareeb's attorney, David L. Shuman, with the Charleston law firm of Shuman, McCuskey and Slicer, filed a motion on Feb. 12 asking the case be transferred to Putnam Circuit Court. The reason for the transfer, Shuman argued, was that the amount of dispute between Mangold and Ghareeb was greater than $2,500, and since Ghareeb performed a medical service, Mangold's case should be considered as one of medical malpractice.

Shuman also filed a motion for summary judgment citing Mangold's failure to file a pre-suit notice, and certificate of merit pursuant to the Medical and Professional Liability Act. Records show Magistrate Kim Blair on Feb. 16 granted Shuman's motion to transfer the case to circuit court.

Six days later, Spaulding set March 26 for a scheduling conference. That was voided when he granted Mangold's motion to withdraw the suit.

Putnam Magistrate Court, case number 10-C-39; Putnam Circuit Court, case number 10-C-63