ILNews

Zoeller goes after closed Allcare Dental chain

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A chain of dental offices that abruptly closed multiple Indiana locations in December 2010 left patients without care, refunds or records, according to a complaint filed by the Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller has filed a complaint against Allcare Dental & Dentures, which closed offices in Anderson, Avon, Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Mishawaka and Muncie. The complaint alleges multiple licensing violations against company president Robert Bates.

The AG’s office said in a statement that it filed a complaint with the Indiana State Board of Dentistry, claiming that Bates gave employees two days notice that offices would close for two weeks beginning Dec. 18, 2010. Days before the offices were to reopen, Bates told workers that the offices were permanently closed.

The complaint says Allcare failed to reimburse patients who paid upfront for services that weren’t completed; failed to complete dental procedures in progress; and didn’t provide dentures that were fabricated. The Board of Dentistry is unable to provide restitution to customers, but Zoeller said consumer restitution is being sought separately by his office through bankruptcy proceedings.

“This formal licensing complaint is part of our office’s consumer protection effort to hold Indiana’s professional license holders to the standards required by the state – both in terms of quality of care and service,” Zoeller said in a statement.
 
According to the AG’s office, Bates’ failure to notify patients of the closing violates state law requiring dentists to notify patients in writing or by publication once a week for three consecutive weeks in the newspaper. The AG’s office said dentists were locked out of their offices and unable to notify patients or make reasonable arrangements to transfer patient records as the law requires.

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio and West Virginia also have taken actions against Bates’ dental licenses for similar violations. Bates has settled or been party to consent agreements with the licensing boards of each of those states, according to the AG’s complaint.

The Indiana State Board of Dentistry is scheduled to conduct a hearing on the complaint Oct. 5.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT