Skip to content

Rheumatologist Dr. Blocka:  Concealed Bone Scan Films

Affidavit / CMPA Backlash  (page 1)

QB Court Stamp

Q.B. #514 of 1987

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN
JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON

Between:
GEORGENA SARAH SIL | PLAINTIFF
Self-Represented (Pro Se)
Legal advice from:
Attorney Nancy E. Ayers
Mitchell Ayers Gregor
Saskatoon, Canada
and –  
DR. KENNETH BLOCKA | DEFENDANT
Attorney: Richard W. Elson
McKercher, McKercher, Laing & Whitmore
374 - Third Avenue North
Saskatoon, Canada S7K 1M5

AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGENA SIL

I, GEORGENA SIL, of the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, a scientist by profession, MAKE OATH AND SAY:

1

THAT I am the Plaintiff in the within action and as such have personal knowledge of the facts and matters herein deposed to except where stated to be based on information and belief and whereso stated I do verily believe the same to be true.

2

THAT the Defendant in this action is Dr. Kenneth Blocka, a Rheumatology Specialist at University Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to whom I was referred for treatment by my family doctor, Dr. K.V. O’Reilly in July 1985. The within action arises out of my referral by Dr. Blocka to the Mayo Clinic for verification of a diagnosis that I suffer from a bone inflammatory condition known as Osteitis Pubis as well as recommendations for treatment thereof. The within action further arises out of Dr. Blocka's refusal to provide follow-up treatment upon my return from the Mayo Clinic as well as a number of subsequent actions hereinafter referred to.

3

THAT on January 11, 1989, Mr. Justice H.A. Osborne granted an Order whereby the limitation period regarding the action of medical negligence against Dr. Blocka was to be extended for a period of six months. That in the testimony of the solicitor who represented me on that day, Nancy E. Ayers, and I verily believe the same to be true, Mr. Justice Osborne was sympathetic to the extreme fatigue, pain and suffering imposed by my bone disease, and instructed verbally that should my health status not be improved over the intervening six months, it would be reasonable to return with an application for further extension.

4

THAT my health has not improved, and my bone disease continues to inflict intractable pain day and night accompanied by profound fatigue. Experience reveals that my intense engagement in legal work in November/December 1988 towards this case worsened my physical health drastically and, even with the lull in activity that followed, recovery was not swift. Nature ultimately has the last word, and at the present stage of the bone disease, my body will not tolerate more than a minimum of activity in caring for myself, plus meeting my necessary medical appointments.

THAT in support of this a current medical certificate dated August of 1989 is provided from the family physician in charge of my case, Dr. W.H. McKee of Saskatoon (attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A to this my Affidavit). That my covering letter dated August 2, 1989 specifies my day-to-day experience with my disease (attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B to this my Affidavit).

5

THAT although I was employed as a Physicist, I have been unable to work since mid-1984 when I was forced to resign as a direct result of the toll of developing serious physical health problems. The fact that this disease and the pain and exhaustion associated with it has prevented me from working since 1984 also means that I have not the financial resources to devote to legal expenses to pursue this matter immediately.

6

THAT I am currently representing myself in the within action, because I must lessen the strain of legal fees, and because my former solicitor on this case, Nancy E. Ayers of Saskatoon, recently ceased the practice of law on or about April 3, 1989.

7

THAT by letter dated May 4, 1989 I requested Dr. Blocka's Statement as to Documents from his solicitors. The Statement as to Documents was provided, though in an incomplete state and unsigned by the Defendant. Admission of service was supplied via letter dated May 24, 1989 to the Defendant's solicitors.

8

THAT the Defendant's solicitors developed a Supplementary Statement as to Documents to compensate for omissions I had pointed out in my letter of May 24, 1989. The Supplement was also unsigned by the Defendant. Admission of service was supplied via letter dated July 12, 1989 to the Defendant's solicitors.

9

THAT I made arrangements with the Defendant's solicitor Mr. Richard Elson to review the documents, as listed in the Defendant's Statement as to Documents plus the Supplement, at the offices of McKercher and Company, Saskatoon on July 27, 1989.

10

THAT I have sought and obtained Dr. Blocka's hospital records.

11

THAT the Defendant's solicitors have not yet followed through on a voluntary Undertaking (with the effect of a Restraining Order) offered to my former solicitor Nancy E. Ayers in December 1988. This Undertaking, prompted by a series of prolonged and devastating circumstances hereinafter described in this my Affidavit, was to read: Dr. Blocka shall not engage in any direct or indirect communications respecting Mrs. Sil's character, integrity, and medical history with any person including, but not restricted to, any physician Mrs. Sil may consult with respect to her care and treatment, except as may be expressly requested and authorized by herself.

12

THAT Dr. Blocka failed to exercise due care and attention in his referral of my case to the Mayo Clinic in January of 1986, the consequences proving to be:

  • That treatment administered by Dr. Blocka just prior to the Mayo visit masked the results of important measurements done at the Mayo Clinic.
  • That Dr. Blocka failed to supply the most salient history data (viz. bone-scan films) to the Mayo Clinic, even though requested in advance for same.
  • That the referral letter to the Mayo Clinic prepared by Dr. Blocka presented my medical case in an inaccurate and misleading manner.
  • That the superior resources of the Mayo Clinic were denied me due to this multiple mismanagement.

THAT Dr. Blocka reacted in a discreditable manner to these revelations. Not only was I the recipient of his original mistakes, but was victimized a second time by an emotional backlash and extended hostility as he recognized his negligence and feared being held to account.

Georgena S. Sil
Saskatoon, Canada
Physicist & Technical Writer
Alumnus: University of British Columbia
TuumEstContact@protonmail.com

Copyright © 2008-2018 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.