Can I be charged for dental services that were never provided?
<p>I was going to have my daughter's wisdom teeth removed at a local dental office.  Upon arrival I signed a sales receipt to have our Smile Generation account charged $864 for the wisdom teeth removal; however, on the receipt, it states, &quot;“I am confirming that the above procedure(s) HAS/HAVE BEEN, OR WILL, OR IS/ARE TODAY BEING Performed on me by the names office.  I authorize Smile Generation Financial to remit the above amount to the above Office for payment for the procedure(s) indicated above.”</p>
<p>The word &quot;Today&quot; to me means this sales receipt would only be valid if the procedure was actually conducted on the day specified on the bill of sales; however, we have not had our daughters wisdom teeth removed, but they still charged us the full amount.  It's been months now and Smile Generation is wanting their money; however, the dental office is not responding in regard to reimbursing our account.  Do I have any legal recourse in this situation?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Can I be charged for dental services that were never provided?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. At this point the company's/dentist's delay of service is indicative that they are not planning on fulfilling their obligation toward you[r daughter].</p>
<p>The receipt you signed can be only construed as a <em>confirmation</em> that you <em>authorize</em> the company to charge you. However, that authorization obviously is premised on the delivery of a service which was scheduled for a certain date and which hitherto they have neglected/failed to provide.</p>
<p>The receipt cannot be construed as a confirmation of having received dental treatment. The initial statement outlines three alternatives for the timing of service. Note that the second alternative is the one-word, open ended &quot;<em>will</em>&quot; (should read &quot;<em>will be</em>&quot;), whereas the word &quot;<em>today</em>&quot; pertains only to the third alternative because it is placed between &quot;<em>is/are</em>&quot; and &quot;<em>being</em>&quot;, both of which unequivocally pertain to the third alternative. Indeed, &quot;<em>[service] will today being performed</em>&quot; is grammatically incorrect. The term &quot;<em>today</em>&quot; would have to be placed differently (example: &quot;<em>HAS/HAVE BEEN, OR WILL BE, OR IS/ARE BEING Performed TODAY</em>&quot;) for a reasonable person to construe the term &quot;<em>today</em>&quot; as plausibly encompassing --or being common to-- all three alternatives.</p>
<p>Accordingly, the delay gives you the option to rescind the contract. Had you already paid, you would have claims of <em>breach of contract</em>, <em>fraud</em>, and <em>unjust enrichment</em>. But paying at this point for a service that has not been provided, and for which they are not really following up, is risky because it might afford to them the allegation that your delayed payment evidences your agreement or acquiescence that the failure to provide the service is your fault rather than theirs.</p>
<p>The amount of $864 reflects that you can file a complaint only in Small Claims court (based on the company's website, I'm assuming your jurisdiction is somewhere in the US), and thus prevent the company from moving forward with debt collectors and/or other actions. Additionally, you might want to report this to the agency in charge of consumer protection in your jurisdiction, since their pattern of conduct constitutes one or multiple unfair and deceptive practices. Most or all jurisdictions have legislation that sanctions businesses' unfair and deceptive practices.</p>

fraud billing