Skip to content

Statutory Declaration

Dr. Blocka Negligence – Mayo Clinic Referral

QB Court Stamp

Q.B. #514 of 1987


Attorney: Nancy E. Ayers
Mitchell Ayers Gregor
239 Fifth Avenue North
Saskatoon, Canada S7K 2P3
and –  
Attorney: Richard W. Elson
McKercher, McKercher, Laing & Whitmore
374 - Third Avenue North
Saskatoon, Canada S7K 1M5


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

1. THAT this declaration summarizes the consequences of the mismanagement of my Mayo Clinic referral under the auspices of Dr. K. Blocka.

2. THAT treatment given by Dr. Blocka just prior to the Mayo visit masked the results of important measurements done at the Mayo Clinic.

  1. A treatment called pulse therapy (steroids intravenously for potent anti-inflammatory effect) was administered by Dr. Blocka in Saskatoon just prior to my Mayo visit. The pulse therapy consisted of four I.V. infusions of 1 gram solumedrol during November and December 1985. The Mayo Clinic visit followed in early January 1986.
  2. The pulse therapy treatment was responsible for creating a falsely masked reading in the bone scan done at the Mayo Clinic. (Note: a bone scan is a type of nuclear-medicine scan measuring inflammation). The masking of this scan is confirmed by later experience and by reference to authority in the field of nuclear medicine. (Note: masking refers to a false-negative result).
  3. The Mayo Clinic also performed an indium scan (measuring abnormal white-cell activity in bone marrow) which produced a positive result. Getting this combination of scan results was apparently a paradox which could not be resolved without visible access to the scan history.

3. THAT Dr. Blocka failed to supply the most salient data to the Mayo Clinic, even though requested in advance for same.

  1. Dr. Blocka had been requested by Mayo Clinic to supply all relevant scan and x-ray films for me to transport to Mayo. Dr. Blocka made arrangements with the University Hospital Radiology (i.e. x-ray) Department, but neglected to contact the University Hospital Nuclear Medicine Department. The latter would undoubtedly have been co-operative if approached since Dr. Blocka is a staff physician at that very hospital.
  2. It is these Nuclear-Medicine scans which form the backbone of measurement of my bone disease, yet these films which mattered most were not sought or supplied by Dr. Blocka.
  3. The Mayo Clinic had no means of assessing the real past history of the bone disease relating to measurements of intensity and location within the bone. The Mayo Clinic is quick in its evaluations and, therefore, serious in its requests for data and it is their policy that whatever data the referring physician fails to supply is automatically viewed as unimportant.

4. THAT the referral letter to the Mayo Clinic prepared by Dr. Blocka presented the medical case in an inaccurate and misleading manner.

  1. There was serious confusion due to the fact that my two physical diseases (Interstitial Cystitis and Osteitis Pubis) were not separated by Dr. Blocka into two distinct entities in terms of treatments and responses. There was misleading information of several other types, and this is conveyed in my February 17, 1986 letter to Dr. Blocka attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A to this my affidavit.
  2. This referral misinformation maximized the impact of the mistakes described above.

5. THAT the result of the foregoing was that the superior resources of the Mayo Clinic were denied me due to serious mishandling of the referral by Dr. Blocka.

  1. The Mayo Clinic had a paradox in their scans (the bone scan and indium scan). Due to the misleading and incomplete referral letter from Dr. Blocka and the missing history scan films, the Mayo Clinic came down on the side of the false-negative bone scan rather than the positive indium scan. Mayo produced the response that The diagnosis may be an Osteitis Pubis which is on the way to burning itself out. If not in relief in two months time, come back and have everything re-evaluated.
  2. Of course I could not afford another trip to the Mayo Clinic and instead elected to proceed as far as possible in Saskatoon. The intervening time has demonstrated:
    1. the bone disease is progressing rather than remitting;
    2. local bone scans (performed after my body was clear of all pulse therapy steroidal agents) demonstrated no abatement of the original pubic-bone inflammation;
    3. in addition, these bone scans show that inflammation is progressing in other bone locations compatible with the symptoms. Due to this, the diagnosis Osteitis Pubis is in doubt, and is now considered only our working diagnosis.
  3. Dr. Blocka reacted badly to these developments. Not only was I the recipient of his original mistakes, but was victimized a second time by an emotional backlash and attack as he recognized his negligence and feared being held to account. The honourable response from Dr. Blocka would have been to acknowledge the mistakes and sort out the confusion in order to get on with my medical care. Instead, I was subjected to hostility, panic and a backlash which cost me a great deal in terms of time and goodwill within our local medical community. In fact, it is still costing me.

6. THAT I make this Declaration solemnly believing it to be true and knowing that it has the same and full force and effect as given under The Canada Evidence Act.

DECLARED BEFORE ME at the ) ____________________
City of Saskatoon, in the Province ) Georgena S. Sil
of Saskatchewan, this 12th day )  
of December ,  A.D. 1988. )  
N. Ayers  
  • Mayo Clinic
  • Negligence
  • 1
  • 2


Mayo Clinic

Osteitis Pubis

Interstitial Cystitis

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

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