> wipeou...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Steve
Well, thanks for your reply. I understand that you're not saying that
the dentist didn't falsely charge me, but I would know if he worked on
1 or 2 teeth or if it were top and/or bottom of my mouth. (Forgive me,
I just had to say that.) However, I'm wondering if I take the matter
to BBB, then the Atty Gen, then finally the Dept of Professionalism,
then the Sm Claims Court - in that specific order. If I fair well with
the Dept of Professionalism, (they will examine the evidence), then I
could probably use that out-come in the Sm Claims Court. The Judge
would probably lean toward a report from the gov rather than the
dentist.
Steven Fawks - 29 Feb 2008 15:26 GMT
> Well, thanks for your reply. I understand that you're not saying that
> the dentist didn't falsely charge me, but I would know if he worked on
> 1 or 2 teeth or if it were top and/or bottom of my mouth. (Forgive me,
> I just had to say that.)
No forgiveness needed. However:
I have had patients ask in the middle of treatment, "What tooth
are you working on?" Also once in a while there is a spot on a nearby
tooth that I will go ahead and fix that I didn't originally plan
on treating and the patient would not know unless I stop, give them
a mirror and explain what I'm going to do. Usually, I just tell
them what's going on, but if they are stressed or on nitrous, they
might not remember everything I'm saying during treatment.
So, could two teeth be worked on without your knowledge?
Absolutely.
If one tooth is on the maxillary arch and one on the mandibular, it
is less likely to go unnoticed, and certainly if they were on opposite
sides of your mouth.
However, I'm wondering if I take the matter
> to BBB, then the Atty Gen, then finally the Dept of Professionalism,
> then the Sm Claims Court - in that specific order. If I fair well with
> the Dept of Professionalism, (they will examine the evidence), then I
> could probably use that out-come in the Sm Claims Court. The Judge
> would probably lean toward a report from the gov rather than the
> dentist.
Peer review boards have both sides agree on an outcome and the
issue is *finished*.
For the rest, I don't know. Sounds like you're really out for
vengence. When I don't even know what happened *for sure*, it's
not something I would recommend.
Steve
Bill - 05 Mar 2008 16:33 GMT
On Feb 28, 12:34 pm, "wipeou...@hotmail.com" <wipeou...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > wipeou...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> would probably lean toward a report from the gov rather than the
> dentist.-
If the dentist is a member of the dental association, then you can ask
the local association to open a Peer Review case. An board of
experienced dentists will examine the case and give an unbiased
conclusion, all at no charge to you.
If the dentist is found to be at fault, he will have to refund your
money.
The Peer Review is only available if your dentist is a member of the
dental association, which is one reason to check on that membership
before selecting a dentist. Non-member dentists know they are not
subject to Peer Review, so a patient with a problem would have to use
the small claims courts and pay the court fees up front.
In my region the majority of small claims cases are won by the
dentist, as most patients don't know how to present evidence, or they
have no real evidence. This is in contrast to the Peer Review cases in
which the examining panel of dentists already know where to look for
evidence and how to evaluate it.
Before you take ANY kind of legal or review action, it is better to
talk with the dentist yourself and try to settle the matter
personally. That saves time and trouble for everyone concerned.
- dentaldoc