The legal test case over restrictions barring non-Bermudians from practising as dentists is set to rumble on ? with some dentists saying there are not enough practitioners to handle the work. understands an appeal is set to be lodged after a late February ruling by Supreme Court judge Charles-Etta Simmons found the Bermuda Dental Board had not discriminated against an English dentist because of his place of origin.

Local dentist Dr. Robert Gibbons lamented that decision saying there were not enough dentists to cover the workload.

However Dental Board Chairman Dr. Richard Cann said more dentists had registered since the legal fight began back in 2001.

He said: ?There are two main points to bear in mind as to the significance of the decision of the Supreme Court. The first is that the Supreme Court exonerated the Dental Board of any act of discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1981.?

And he said the public needed to know that discrimination on the ground of place of origin does not include within its meaning the giving of preference to Bermudians over non-Bermudians.

However Dr. Gibbons said the decision would have far-reaching consequences for patient care.

He said there were a number of older dentists who were cutting their hours or retiring all together.

?It is the Board?s responsibility to make sure Bermuda is covered. The board is not protecting the people it is supposed to protect.?

Telling people to wait months for treatment and chew Tylenol was a problem said Dr. Gibbons.

The legal battle began in 2001 when English dentist David Thompson took the Dental Board to court after it had given him a failing grade in an exam that would have cleared the way for him to practice in Bermuda.

Dr. Thompson had received a work permit to practice after being offered a job by dentistDavid Dyer.

But the board later wrote to Dr. Dyer saying only Bermudians, or spouses of Bermudians, could sit the qualifying examination ? a policy not supported by the Dental Act.

Following a complaint to Government, the board later allowed Dr. Thompson to sit the examination, but a week later was told he had failed.

But he was not allowed to re-sit the exam and filed an application for Judicial Review. He alleged the examining committee and the board were biased against him and the examiners were inconsistent, unfair and irrational in their evaluation of his exam performance.

A Judicial Review followed ? appointed under the Human Rights Act ? and October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the Dental Board?s decision saying the examiners? evaluations of his performance was full of contradictions and that at least one of the examiners had been biased against Dr. Thompson.

However that decision was appealed by the Dental Board and in a judgment given by Charles-Etta Simmons found there had been no discrimination under the Human Rights Act.

Dr. Thompson?s lawyer David Kesseram refused to comment about the set-back however one source close to the case said an appeal was imminent.