← Back
📁 MARK'S DOC
🔗 Linked Evidence
Review_Division_Submission_3_of_3 — p.15
📄 Review Division Submission 3 of 3 | p.15
📄 Review Division Submission 3 of 3 | p.15
📝 Extracted Text (OCR)
V. RELEVANT WCAT PRECEDENTS INVOLVING THE SAME ADVISOR'S METHODOLOGY The worker submits the following prior WCAT decisions as relevant context for assessing the reliability of the methodology applied in this case. In each, a similar pattern — averaging away transient or directional acoustic events, requiring symmetrical audiometric presentation as a precondition for occupational causation, and attributing hearing-related symptoms to a selectively-identified pre-existing condition — was identified or addressed by the Tribunal. * WCAT A1801216 (August 31, 2018, Vice Chair Zucko): A heavy fabrication welder's bilateral sensorineural hearing loss was attributed by the Advisor to “causes of unknown origin,” using a steady-state exposure model that did not account for impulse noise. WCAT found the Advisor's opinion inadequate, preferred an otolaryngologist's opinion identifying a classic occupational noise pattern, and allowed the appeal. * WCAT A1802828 (March 19, 2019, Vice Chair Ferguson): Following an acute eardrum perforation caused by improper earplug insertion, the Advisor attributed ongoing hearing loss to a childhood tympanoplasty completed and resolved decades earlier, rather than to the documented acute trauma. * WCAT A2001793 (March 10, 2021, Vice Chair Murray): The Advisor's noise exposure estimate for a 35-year fire captain was found not to reflect his actual operational reality; WCAT found hazardous exposure continued beyond the date the Advisor's opinion assumed exposure had ended. * WCAT A2100322 (September 17, 2021, Vice Chair Zucko): A retired firefighter's claim was assessed against a requirement of audiometric symmetry, with asymmetry treated as evidence of non-occupational causation, despite 37% years of documented directional, high-intensity acoustic exposure. The worker submits that the present file follows a related pattern: a fragment of the worker's medical history — in this instance, a migraine history that was stable and well-managed for at least 17 months — is treated as sufficient on its own to explain a sudden, severe, and unprecedented escalation, without engaging with the documented stability of that history or its timing relative to a new occupational exposure. VI. SUMMARY OF RELIEF REQUESTED The worker respectfully requests that the Review Division: * Confirm that the applicable limitation period for this Request for Review runs from the date of notification to the worker (March 23, 2026), and address the three-day discrepancy between that date and the internally recorded decision date (March 20, 2026); * Direct an inquiry into the sequence of internal communications between WorkSafeBC and the employer (BCRTC) in the period surrounding March 13-23, 2026, and whether any employer notification occurred prior to the worker's own notification; * Set aside the Clinical Opinion as an insufficient and unreliable basis for denial, in light of (i) the alteration of dated source material identified in Part II.B, (ii) its failure to address the acoustic telemetry and audiometric shift set out in Part Ill and Part IV.A, and (iii) its mischaracterization of the worker's medication and migraine history as set out in Part IV.C; * Accept Claim No. 42647461 as an occupational acoustic injury arising from the OMC1 Training Room exposure of January 12—23, 2026, consistent with the worker's submitted telemetry and independent audiometric findings; and