dentist Vincent Bridgewater raised the suspicions of BF&M Insurance bosses, a Supreme Court jury was told yesterday.

The jurors were hearing opening testimony in Bridgewater's much-delayed trial on charges of making fraudulent dental claims from BF&M.

The claims submitted by the former United Bermuda Party MP between April 1989 and mid-1991 totalled more than $40,000.

Former Bermuda Police fraud detective Neil Richardson, who searched Bridgewater's Cedarparkade offices on August 13, 1991, seizing patient records, testified that 74 percent of the dentist's claims were for expensive restorative work -- crowns, bridgesand dentures.

This compared to 15-29 percent for several other top dental surgeons, he said.

For instance, Dr. Duncan Moran claimed $6,998 for restorative work out of a total of $44,669 in claims while Bridgewater had claimed $42,000 for restorative work out of a total of $63,909 in claims.

Bridgewater, defended by Mr. Julian Hall, has denied 14 charges of fraudulently obtaining money from BF&M Insurance, which offers group dental insurance schemes. Each payment received averaged $1,000 to $5,000.

He has also denied three charges of attempted fraud involving more than $11,000 in allegedly false insurance claims on behalf of patients.

Mr. Hall is arguing the investigation was "wrong-footed from the outset''.

In opening arguments, the prosecution alleged Bridgewater billed BF&M for approximately "twice the amount of work he had actually done''.

Furthermore, it alleged that he suggested to his patients that expensive treatments could be made affordable to them and as a result patients had work done they would not necessarily have had.

Solicitor General Mr. Barrie Meade told the jury they would be hearing from 17 patients on behalf of whom Bridgewater allegedly made false claims.

He noted they had each been examined by an independent board of dentists to see what work Bridgewater had done in comparison with his claims.

One patient herself, in alarm, had questioned a $3,600 bill for bridge work, some of which she had not yet had done, Mr. Meade said. He claimed Bridgewater told the woman she would not have to pay the 50 percent as was the policy with BF&M.

His high number of claims for expensive restorative dental work raised the suspicions of Dr. Duncan Moran, a dentist hired by BF&M as a claims consultant, Mr. Meade said.

BF&M vice president Mrs. Judy Panchaud also became suspicious after seeing Bridgewater, compared to other dentists, put in a lot more claims for restorative dental work -- crowns, bridges, dentures.

Cross examining Richardson, Mr. Hall demanded he or the Crown produce court documents disclosing the reasons he gave in Magistrates' Court for securing a search warrant.

Mr. Hall said he intended to show the investigation was "wrong-footed from the start'' and based on "erroneous'' assumptions of what the BF&M dental claims forms meant.

"The damage to my client's reputation will ultimately be shown to be a consequence of a misunderstanding by Police and those who gave legal advice,'' he said.

On the issue of some of the "suspicious'' claims, Mr. Hall, referring to a claim for a ten-tooth bridge all in one session, asked Richardson whether he thought it conceivable such a procedure could have taken place in one sitting.

Richardson said he did not have the expertise to say.

Mr. Hall responded that he would be calling evidence to suggest it was not, bringing him to the issue of "pre-estimates'' -- submitting claims for work intended, but not done.

Richardson insisted BF&M did not issue cheques for work that had not been carried out.

Mr. Hall asked him if he had made any effort to check which patients were the subject of overpayment re-payment claims by Bridgewater.

Richardson said he was aware the dentist had made some repayments in 1991, but that BF&M had advised him it was accepting the money although this would not halt their investigation.

Mrs. Panchaud, next to take the stand, said an "escalation in dental restorative work claims'' led to a change of policy in May, 1990 requiring dentists to submit estimates for expensive dental work for authorisation purposes.

"Prior to that we simply paid for services rendered and administered,'' she said.