offensive when he accused vice-president of BF&M insurance and her staff of being poorly trained.

Mr. Julian Hall told BF&M boss, Judy Panchaud that she and her colleagues had almost destroyed the business reputation of his client.

Bridgewater, who runs a dental practice at his Cedarparkade offices, is accused of defrauding BF&M Insurance by more than $40,000 between 1989 and 1991.

He has denied 14 charges of fraudulently obtaining money from BF&M Insurance and three charges of attempted fraud.

Excessive claims by Bridgewater for costly restorative work on crowns, bridges and dentures came to $42,000 or 74 percent of a total of $63,909 claimed during the two year period.

The figures came to light after a report, launched in 1991 by BF&M to pinpoint why dental claims had rocketed in 1990, pointed the finger at Bridgewater.

Meanwhile, the report showed other dentists claimed between 15 and 29 percent for restorative work.

Mr. Hall, claims the figures simply indicate Bridgewater did more restorative work than other dentists.

Office manager of Bridgewater's dental practice, Jean Denkins, yesterday said forms sent to BF&M contained pre-estimates for work to be performed -- not claims.

"The work wasn't done at the time I sent the claim in so it was a pre-estimate,'' Denkins said.

But she admitted there was nothing on the forms, except on one where she pencilled the words "pre-estimate'', to indicate the documents were not claims.

When questioned by Solicitor General Mr. Barrie Meade as to whether she had ever sent refunds to BF&M for overpayment when intended services had not been carried out or partially carried out, she replied she had not.

But she said she believed Bridgewater had written out cheques to the company.

However, when Panchaud took the witness stand to resume her testimony yesterday, she claimed it was not until August 1991 that the company began to receive refunds from Bridgewater.

By this time, an investigation, conducted by the Dental Association and later turned over to the Police, was well under way.

It was launched at the beginning of 1991 to investigate why 1990 claims appeared to have gone "haywire''.

Panchaud also said up until a change of policy in May 1990, BF&M did not ask for pre-estimates for bridge and crown work.

Pay outs to dentists were made on the assumption that work claimed for had been carried out. Only rarely did dentists, confused by policies of other insurance companies, send in estimates.

She said there was nothing to distinguish Bridgewater's pre-estimates from claims by other dentists, except on one form where "pre-estimate'' had been pencilled in.

But, she said, the date of service had also been filled out, suggesting the work had been done. Panchaud admitted the anomaly should have been queried.

Mr. Hall told Panchaud the company knew Bridgewater had submitted estimates in at least four cases.

A letter from Panchaud to himself in September 1990 referred to the claims of four patients as "pre-estimates''.

But Panchaud said BF&M received the forms in July but were not processed until further information was supplied by Bridgewater. She assumed that during that time it came to light the claims were in fact pre-estimates.

Mr. Hall also took The Royal Gazette to task for claiming Bridgewater was accused of "bilking his clients''.

"I was not aware this was part of the prosecution's case,'' he said.

Bridgewater is not accused of defrauding his clients.