POLICE are investigating how a document went missing from the case file of deputy Attorney-general Akis Papasavvas, who received €17,000 from the state covering his expenses for teeth implants carried out at a private clinic.
The missing document is the final report of the panel of government dentists which examined Papasavvas’ request back in February.
According to daily Politis, which broke the story, Papasavvas’ request was processed swiftly and he received the money within a month.
Papasavvas’ net annual income is in excess of €100,000.
Following the brouhaha over the story, Health Minister Christos Patsalides asked to see the file only to discover that a key document was missing.
The police have now been brought in to find why and how the document disappeared. In the meantime, Patsalides has ordered an internal probe to determine what the doctors’ report said.
“The misplacement of a public document constitutes a criminal offence, and that is why I have asked the police to get involved,” Patsalides said yesterday.
According to Politis, the law on state and public officials provides that they, their spouses and children are entitled to free dental care but restricted to extractions and fillings carried out by government dentists. The paper branded the story a financial scandal.
Papasavvas himself has categorically denied any wrongdoing or irregularity, and is suing the paper.
Last week Patsalides said that Papasavvas’ request for dental coverage was received by the then acting permanent secretary of the Health Ministry, who passed it onto the panel, which responded positively since the services obtained from the private doctor were not offered by the public health service.
The government dentists on the panel are now being interviewed on the details of the case.
“We want to see what the report says, for example whether the panel’s verdict left room for interpretation,” Patsalides explained.
Asked whether it was usual for similar requests to be processed within such a short period of time, he said: “It depends on the nature of each case and the backlog.”
Government spokesman Stefanos Stefanos refused to be drawn yesterday, saying he could not comment on an ongoing investigation.
Asked by newsmen whether the government was concerned that the handling of Papasavvas’ case might open the floodgates for similar frivolous claims, and this at a time of belt-tightening, Stefanou offered this stock response: “Many people apply to state health services for treatment, and there are procedures and regulations in place.”
Without going into detail, the spokesman said it was up to the Health Ministry’s investigation to clear up what state officials are entitled to.
“The investigation must determine whether the money was rightly given [to Papasavvas], whether the decision was correct or not, and whether all or part of the amount was above board.”
In a follow-up, Politis said yesterday that dental services at state hospitals have since been inundated with calls from civil servants asking whether they are entitled to dental coverage for implants.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a well-known Nicosia dentist told the Mail yesterday there was “no way” the panel of government dentists would have okayed Papasavvas’ request for implants.
Implants are inlays that mechanically support porcelain crowns and bridgework, the dentist explained.
“It’s got nothing to do with an ailment. A patient’s life is not at risk if he or she does not get an implant.
According to the source, the word on the grapevine is that the panel of government dentists actually rejected Papasavvas’ request.
“I can’t imagine that the panel would approve the request. They know just as well as anyone that it would open the floodgates for similar claims. So is it any wonder that the paper trail has gone cold?” the source asked.
Papasavvas was recently paid some €28,000 by the state, in an out-of-court settlement, as compensation for being illegally made to quit the AG’s office where he was serving as senior counsel.
He subsequently retired normally and was appointed deputy AG. When he had been forced to retire, Papasavvas had taken a large amount of money from the state, including unemployment benefit and his retirement pay-off, which he should have returned as soon as he was re-instated by court decision.
Papasavvas refused to return the money even though he was legally obliged to do so, claiming that he was eligible to compensation for the trauma caused by his forced retirement. The Attorney-general’s office took him to court demanding the return of the money, but eventually dropped the case.
