8 More Deceptive Acts Alleged Against Waltham Dentist

In this 5th and final article in a series, exploring a a dozen or more claims of deceptive business practices (alleged by a former patient) of a Waltham dentist, Dr. Jeffrey S. Cummings, the acts described here include: outdoor false advertising, no refund policy, and bait and switch, among other deceptive business practices.

The patient is not named due to privacy of health records.

Here is a list of the eight additional deceptive acts alleged, written and posted as a public service to Waltham neighbors:

EIGHT DECEPTIVE ACTS

1) MATERIALLY FALSE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING. A former patient (the “Consumer”) claims that for a number of years, Consumer saw outdoor advertising of Dr. Cummings in the form of a large sign at that could be easily read when driving down Main Street.

The sign, located at 520 Main Street where Dr. Cummings has his office, made two express representations: that “Cosmetic” and “Implant” dentistry were done by Dr. Cummings (the “Dentist”). Together with the word "Dentistry," these advertised words, outdoors on the large sign in front of his office, made an implied material representation to consumers: the Dentist is a “specialist” in these two "Dentistry" fields.

His website URL is restoreteeth.com which reinforces this impression, and again implies a specialty for a patient seeking an implant. This website URL actually appeared on an early version of the Dentist's outdoor advertising (see the first of three photos of signs at end of this article).

However, the Consumer has since learned: there is no such specialty of implants or cosmetic dentistry recognized by Massachusetts or the American Dental Association ("ADA"). Any dentist in general dentistry practice can do implants. (Some individual states may recognize a cosmetic dentistry or implant specialty. But MA does not. Nor does the ADA.)

See this definition of a "specialty" from the ADA website:

Dental Specialties

"A specialty is an area of dentistry that has been formally recognized by the National Commission on Recognition of Dental Specialties and Certifying Boards . . . .Currently there are twelve dental specialties recognized by the National Commission on Recognition of Dental Specialties and Certifying Boards. . . "

A list of the current 12 specialties is on the ADA site.

Not long ago, in 2017, there were only 9 dental specialties, as explained in this article (not from the ADA), which ends with this question:

Cosmetic dentistry and Implant dentistry are dental specialties too ?

Cosmetic dentistry and Implant dentistry or implantology are not recognized dental specialties, they do not imply specialization or even expertise. When you read: “specialized in cosmetic dentistry or dental implants placement” it is more for marketing purposes than real specializations. . . .(emphasis added)

In addition, Stuart Oberman, a lawyer who's been a guest speaker in Boston and writes about false advertising and dentists, had this to say on the topic:

"Is your practice using false or misleading advertising?"

...A growing area of concern regarding advertising on the Internet is that dentists are claiming they are specialists in areas that are not considered or recognized as specialty areas. (emphasis added)

For example, if a particular state dental board does not recognize cosmetic dentistry as an area of specialty and a dentist advertises on the internet that he or she is a “cosmetic dentistry specialist,” then that particular state dental board may consider the advertisement as false and misleading, which could result in disciplinary sanctions against the dentist.

If a dentist claims that he or she is a “nationally recognized expert in implant dentistry,” the advertisement may be concerned deceptive advertising. . .

Consumer claims Dentist's long-time outdoor sign was materially false advertising. It misled Consumer, whose decision to go to the Dentist was primarily the result of believing the Dentist was a “specialist” in implant dentistry, unlike dentists in practice as "general" dentistry.

Consumer believes the Dentist's false outdoor advertising on that sign on busy Main Street was there for more than a decade -- and certainly there throughout the time the Consumer was going to the Dentist.

Recently the sign been removed. The words “Implants” and “Cosmetic,” as well as "Dentistry," are all deleted from the new sign.

The Dentist’s new outdoor advertising is very different than the old signs, as the sign now makes no representation whatsoever of any specialty of the Dentist.

But the Consumer claims the false outdoor advertising -- which Consumer drove by and saw hundreds of times for almost a decade -- is what lured Consumer into that particular office, instead of other nearby dentists.

Consumer wishes that dentists losing business to the Dentist falsely advertising outdoors had complained -- and perhaps they did. Maybe this is the reason the false advertising stopped.

However, unlike some other states, the MA State Dental Board website does not provide the public with an online searchable database of complaints against dentists.

* * *

2) ADVANCE PAYMENT SCHEME. The Consumer claims the Dentist demanded all fees for goods and services be paid in full, 100%, up front, PRIOR to each appointment. Consumer thought that this was typical policy for a "specialist." But the Dentist was actually not a specialist -- and this advance payment in full demand is actually not typical payment policy for any dentist.

The FBI warns consumers on its scams and crimes website of "Advance Pay Schemes," defined as happening:

"... when the victim pays money to someone in anticipation of receiving something of greater value...—and then receives little or nothing in return."

The Consumer claims this is exactly what ended up happening with the Dentist.

* * *

3) FALSE ADVERTISING ON STATIONARY, TO CONCEAL ADVANCE PAYMENT SCHEME.

Consumer claims to have recently timely written and mailed a MA Consumer Law Chapter 93 30-Day Demand Letter to the Dentist.

The Consumer claims the Dentist then sent Consumer a hand-written response, on the Dentist’s stationary, which advertises on the left side, at the bottom, that the Dentist offers “flexible” payment plans for patients.

The Consumer, a private pay patient, said no flexibility at all was offered. Instead, the Dentist always demanded payment in full, in advance - PRIOR TO the appointment.

Advertising on business stationary “flexible” pay plans when no such plan is allowed for private pay patients, and none was ever offered to Consumer, is a deceptive act, intended to conceal what happened to Consumer.

The Consumer claims to have read somewhere that the ADA is aware: private pay patients are often overcharged by dentists, because the dentists are trying to financially compensate for fee caps imposed by insurance companies, to subsidize the insurance payments used by other patients paying by insurance.

* * *

4) FALSELY ACCUSING CONSUMER OF THREATENING DENTIST. The Consumer claims the 93A 30-Day Demand Letter written by the Consumer letter followed the exact format as the "Sample Consumer 93A 30-Day Demand Letter" found on the MA Attorney General website, posted there by that office, for consumers to use.

Despite the Consumer using that exact format -- and despite the Dentist actually agreeing in the Dentist's response the Dentist owed the Consumer money -- the Consumer claims the Dentist wrote Consumer a letter falsely accusing the Consumer of “threatening” him.

The Dentist’s accusation of Consumer committing a crime is false and baseless.

The Consumer did nothing to "threaten" the Dentist by legally demanding the Dentist paying money the Dentist had already agreed in the past to refund. The Consumer timely demanded this on a form letter required by MA law, Chapter 93A.

The Consumer is allowed to use a form letter template recommended by the MA Attorney General’s website – and created by the MA Attorney General's office for use by consumers.

* * *

5) FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A REFUND POLICY IS A DECEPTIVE ACT. The Consumer claims that despite demanding payment up front, in full, PRIOR to each appointment, the Dentist fails to provide any refund policy anywhere, and no refund policy is posted in his office.

The failure to post or disclose a refund policy is already recognized by the MA Attorney General as a deceptive business practice.

* * *

6) FAILURE TO REFUND FOR NON-DELIVERY OF PRODUCT PAID FOR IN ADVANCE. The Consumer claims the FBI site also recognizes scams involving "Non-Delivery of Merchandise." This is defined on the FBI site as follows:

Non-Delivery of Merchandise
"Non-delivery of merchandise is a scheme most often linked to Internet auction fraud, but also can be considered a form of business fraud in certain cases."

Without going into details that would violate the Consumer's privacy rights as a former patient, the Consumer claims this is what happened: goods and services paid for in advance, in full, were never provided by the Dentist for various, unexpected reasons.

Consumer now believes the Dentist knew beforehand: he would not be able to provide the goods and services requested by Consumer and agreed to by the Dentist.

Consumer adds: the unexpected incidents subsequently happened were not the fault of Consumer.

* * *

7) BAIT AND SWITCH IS A DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE. The Consumer claims the Consumer tried to maintain trust in this "specialist" despite an unexpected situation, and so returned once more, after the first unexpected incident -- again paying money up front.

But this time, a bait and switch on product and procedure was about to be done, switching from screw-in implant (requiring great visual ability) to cement, so Consumer stopped the Dentist before any cement could happen. Consumer then told the Dentist: a 2nd opinion was now needed. Consumer got up out of the dentist chair and left, and emailed Dentist that Consumer would not be returning.

An ethical dentist would have accepted the Consumer's decision to get a 2nd opinion - and stopped all work.

Instead, this Dentist later sent the Consumer a photo of what appears to be someone else's implants, claimed he had continued working without Consumer's consent, he would be keeping the 2nd payment, and would send via US mail these implants-- if the Consumer signed a release freeing the dentist from all liability.

The Consumer was shocked as Consumer never agreed to any product called "mail order / do it yourself -- and insert dental implants yourself, somehow, at home."

The Dentist has now demanded three times that the Consumer sign a release. The Consumer refuses to do so, because Consumer believes: no other consumer should ever go through what Consumer went through with Dentist.

Consumer was again shocked when Dentist did not recently send a check in response to the Consumer's timely, legal 30-Day Demand Letter.

And, again, the MA Board of Dentistry is unlike some other states, as the MA Board does not appear to have a procedure to have an emergency hearing.

Consumer claims that according to the MA Board's most recent emails to Consumer, it can take many weeks before they will get around to ever receiving, reviewing, and acting upon the very limited 10-page complaint Consumer has now sent that Board, via US mail, a total of four times, three times by certified mail.

In addition, unlike some other states, the MA Board has no online intake complaint form procedure for consumers. Everything must be by US mail (and as everyone knows, the mail is sometimes delayed or lost).

* * *

8) FALSELY ADVERTISED MATERIAL REPRESENTATION / UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE. The Dentist deceptively claims to be a practicing dentist who can provide what is called "continuity of care" which means a patients' records can be copied and sent to other dentists.

However, when Consumer went elsewhere, according to Consumer, the dentist who then helped Consumer explained: the X-Rays done by the Dentist were done on a machine so old that the Dentist's X-Rays could not be read by the new dentist's machines. Other dentists claimed the same.

Consequently, Consumer had to start all over again, beginning with payment again for new X-Rays and for other product.

* * *

Consumer believes that money paid in advance to Dentist, for product not provided, is money that should have been refunded immediately. That total is $12,000 (twelve thousand dollars).

The Consumer says that trying to get this refund for goods not delivered is not easy. The MA Board of Dentistry does not consider refund requests for money -- even though they claim they will consider any consumer's complaint of a dentist's fraud. Being willing to find fraud, but not being willing to order any dentist to refund the consumer money obtained under false advertising or a deceptive payment policy, and thus obtained by fraud, is not helping consumers; yet, this refusal to order a of refund money is true of other state dental boards, too.

* * *

Three photos, showing how the outdoor false advertising of Dr. Jeffrey S. Cummings continued over the years, are below.

(Photo credits: Apartments.com, and Waltham Property Records website / Fair Use.)

This 5th article ends this series, though obviously not all details can be disclosed, due to privacy rights of health records of the former patient / Consumer.

# # #

You've been reading Part 5 of an original 5-part series written by Susan Alyn titled:

"The Waltham Dentist."

Click here to return to Part 1.

This series has been written and posted as a public service to the neighbors of Waltham. The author posted "The Waltham Dentist" exclusively on Patch Waltham.

Copyright November 2020 by Susan J. Alyn

About the Author:
Susan is a native New Yorker and now resides in Greater Boston, in Waltham. Her
first career was in advertising. She later became a teacher. You can visit her Linked In page.

How to Contact the Author:
If you wish to contact the author with your comments about this original series "The Waltham Dentist," you may write to her at her mailing address:

Susan Alyn, PO Box 550171, North Waltham, MA 02455

Note that any correspondence sent to her about this series becomes the property of the author, and may be published or shared with the public, especially in connection with any future hearings on changing MA laws. However, you may request your name not be disclosed -- and she will not disclose.

Thanks for being here!