she made insurance payments to her dentist for work she knew had not been performed, her boss claimed yesterday.

The role of Beverley Knights in the alleged fraud of BF&M Life by dentist Vincent Bridgewater, came to light during an investigation of an escalation of dental claims in 1989 and 1990.

That was the evidence of Judy Panchaud, vice-president of the insurance company during cross-examination in Supreme Court yesterday.

Bridgewater is accused of defrauding the insurance company of more than $40,000 between 1989 and 1991.

He has denied 14 counts of fraudulently obtaining payments from BF&M Life and three charges of attempted fraud.

At issue is whether claims forms sent to BF&M Life, which offers group dental insurance schemes, were claims or "pre-estimates'' for work to be done.

BF&M Life maintains there was nothing on all but one of the forms to indicate the figures submitted by Bridgewater were estimates.

Furthermore the claims forms posted "dates of service'', indicating the work claimed for, was carried out on that day.

Payments by BF&M Life to Bridgewater averaged between $1,000 and $5,000. But Bridgewater did not refund the company for payments on work not done or partially completed until an investigation into the matter was underway.

The alleged fraud came to light after rocketing dental claims in 1989 and 1990 raised the suspicions of BF&M Life bosses.

A report by claims consultant, Dr. Duncan Moran, broke the figures down to percentage of claims per dentist.

It showed that 74 percent of Bridgewater's claims were for expensive restorative bridge and crown work -- almost twice that of his peers.

But defence lawyer Mr. Julian Hall argued that some dentists do more restorative work than others.

He attributed this to Bridgewater's large number of black patients.

"Do you accept that black people require more restorative work because of their economic situation?'' he asked Panchaud.

Mr. Hall also levelled criticism at BF&M Life management for poor communication with claims staff.

He accused Panchaud of failing to properly instruct claims staff how to distinguish between claims and pre-estimates.

Until a claims form was produced requiring dentists to indicate whether figures submitted were claims or estimates, how could staff distinguish between them, he asked.

But Panchaud replied that in 1989 the company did not ask for pre-estimates.

"We paid claims. If we received a pre-estimate and knew what it was, it had to be marked on the claims form.

"Our instructions with regard to estimates were that we do not pay on pre-estimates.'' Mr. Hall also took issue with BF&M Life for failing to take a "common sense'' approach in the matter.

He said the company must have known the claims forms were pre-estimates because complicated dental work requiring multiple visits could not have been performed on the date of service.

"How much did you understand the rudiments of a dental practice? Did you or anyone in their right mind, including a dentist supposedly trying to rip you off, think that four bridges, one in each quadrant was actually performed on that date?,'' he asked, referring to one of the alleged fraudulent claims.

"No practitioner is going to wait until a four-month process is completed before getting payment on it.'' He further accused the insurance company of putting a "financial stranglehold'' on Bridgewater's practice by withholding payment for insurance claims for "arbitrarily long periods of time''.

But Panchaud replied there was nothing to prevent a dentist from making claims as the work is performed.

"Dr. Bridgewater could easily have submitted for the upper left (quadrant) then the upper right, then the lower right, then the lower left. He did not have to wait four months for payment,'' she said.

Panchaud added the date of service should indicate the date treatment is completed.

Mr. Hall then queried why BF&M Life had not explained to Bridgewater the concept of pro rata payments for work performed.

"It is not our role to make something as simplistic as that clear to a professional,'' Panchaud replied.

"One of the concerns in this case was whether or not payment was being made by the patient. Was the dentist saying to the patient "you don't need to worry about payment -- the insurance company will cover it in full?'' she asked.

"If a dentist had no intention of collecting the remaining 50 percent from the patient we should have only been billed for half of the reduced amount.'' The case continues before Puisne Judge the Hon. Mrs. Justice Wade today. Mr.

Hall is assisted by lawyer, Mr. Marc Telemaque. Mr. Barrie Meade acts for the Crown.