Skip to content

Dr. Kenneth Blocka Cozened the Canada Pension Plan

Affidavit / CMPA Backlash  (page 2)

13

THAT Dr. Blocka committed fraud contrary to Section 46(c) of the Medical Profession Act for Saskatchewan, to wit: A person whose name is entered on the register … is guilty of unbecoming, improper, unprofessional or discreditable conduct, where he knowingly gives a false certificate respecting birth, death, notice of disease or otherwise respecting any matter relating to life insurance, health insurance, or any other insurance.

THAT this arose in relation to a letter requested from Dr. Blocka in support of my application for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. Dr. Blocka was required to state the name of my disease(s), time(s) of onset, and prognosis. The known facts were:

August 1984 I was completely disabled from work due to a bladder disease named Interstitial Cystitis.
October 1984 During instrumentations performed to treat the bladder disease, a complication named Osteitis Pubis developed in the bone.
Result I was left with severe and overlapping pain from two physical conditions.

THAT in relation to this CPP application, Dr. Blocka wrote a letter dated May 1, 1986 (attached hereto and marked as Exhibit C to this my Affidavit) which declared:

Spring 1985 Dr. Blocka falsely declared this date as the onset of the bone disease Osteitis Pubis.
July 1985 Dr. Blocka falsely declared this date as the onset of my disability.
Result This was contrary to the established facts, and had the effect of depriving me of entitlement to my full CPP benefit period.

THAT Dr. Blocka was at that time in full possession of the true facts, and these are entered in his own hand and under his own signature on several local charts and records, including a summary letter written to family physician Dr. O’Reilly on July 18, 1985.

THAT Dr. Blocka's misrepresentation to the Canada Pension Plan was done with willful and malicious intent. Because of Dr. Blocka's emotional backlash in the wake of revelations of his mismanagement of my Mayo Clinic referral some months earlier, University Hospital Administration was forced to intercede on my behalf in securing a CPP support document from Dr. Blocka. Upon presenting his first version of a CPP letter to U.H. Admin, Dr. Blocka was ordered, and I verily believe the same to be true, that We are not going to have any of this! Dr. Blocka was ordered to re-do the letter. I believe that when ordered to toe the line by U.H. Admin, Dr. Blocka became more enraged and also more sly.

THAT the second version of the CPP letter presented by Dr. Blocka was subsequently okayed by U.H. Admin and forwarded to me. However, while no outright defamation exists in said letter, a subtler attack exists in the misrepresentation of the dates of disability. Dr. Blocka bragged afterwards, and I verily believe the same to be true, to several people about what he had got away with.

Clarification: I never saw the first version of Dr. Blocka's CPP letter, as U.H. Administration deemed it unsuitable for distribution. The content of the second letter is covered in the table above.

14

THAT Dr. Blocka violated his physician's trust and duty of confidentiality, contrary to Section 46(c) of the Medical Profession Act for Saskatchewan.

  • Such violation was prolonged and varied, encompassing a period longer than two years.
  • Such communications were obviously designed for some other purpose than furthering my medical care, as Dr. Blocka had long since terminated his care of me.
  • Such violation was conducted knowingly and with malicious intent. It involved dissemination of fraudulent information related to both my character and medical history.

THAT as a consequence I sustained serious losses, including: Difficulty in obtaining further medical care locally; disruption of needed family-physician relationships; depletion of both my physical and emotional reserves; and inability to yet achieve full discovery with respect to my medical condition.

THAT in order to fulfill my obligation to satisfactorily explain the delay in bringing the matters herein to trial, as well as set out the facts in support of a Restraining Order against the Defendant, I submit by way of Affidavit evidence the following examples which illustrate the prolonged and devastating consequences of Dr. Blocka's delinquent choices in conduct.

15

THAT my local medical care encountered growing confusion following the botched Mayo Clinic referral. When revelations of his mismanaged referral came to light, Dr. Blocka attempted to alter the medical history, scrounging to make it appear his mistakes didn't matter. To wit: One significant problem in said referral had been Dr. Blocka's failure to separate my two physical diseases into two distinct entities in terms of treatments and responses. Dr. Blocka later attempted to deny the existence alternately of one or the other disease.

THAT I was forced to respond by educating myself extensively about my own diseases, relying upon my science bent and using the University Health Sciences Library. This ongoing effort utterly exhausted my already limited physical reserves.

THAT I have approached every physician I have consulted over the past two years with the indication that, should they be prepared to undertake my care, I would do everything in my power to make sure they have accurate medical records and the most up-to-date information I could obtain with respect to my disease. Nevertheless, it is only in the past few months that I have found a family physician prepared to undertake my case and work with me on a long term basis to alleviate the excruciating pain from which I suffer on a daily basis as well as search for a long term treatment, if not cure, for my disease.

16

THAT my search to find a family physician between 1986 and this year of 1989 unfolds a tale of intolerable abuse. Repeated disruption of my desperately needed family-physician relationships occurred in the wake of Dr. Blocka's emotional violence. Quite bluntly, I felt subjected to emotional rape, not once but over and over again, in these family-physician relationships all of which progressed rapidly through a period of harassment culminating in rejection.

THAT at the outset my family physician of long standing was Dr. K.V. O’Reilly. That shortly following the collapse of Dr. Blocka's Mayo Clinic referral (January 1986), and particularly his refusal to provide me with follow-up care and treatment for my bone disease, family physician Dr. O’Reilly terminated his services in March 1986. He told me at the time and I verily believe the same to be true that he was terminating our relationship primarily because of exertations and pressure he had been subjected to by the Defendant with respect to his continued involvement with me.

THAT said communications from Dr. Blocka took place after he terminated his professional services, as seen by the sequence:

February 11, 1986 By letter to me on this date, Dr. Blocka terminated his care of me.
March 7, 1986 Dr. Blocka wrote a separate letter to Dr. O’Reilly, titled Confidential. In this letter Dr. Blocka expressed hostility and panic towards my questioning of his Mayo Clinic referral.
March 25, 1986 Dr. O’Reilly reacted by terminating his services the next time I saw him, on or about this date. Dr. O’Reilly quoted as the reason the antagonistic communication from the Defendant.
Georgena S. Sil
Saskatoon, Canada
Physicist & Technical Writer
Alumnus: University of British Columbia

Twitter Facebook Linked In Google+

Copyright © 2008-2019 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.