Processing document — OCR in progress…
May take a minute for large PDFs.
Records: 1190 EMPLOYER 62 WORKSAFE 104 MEDICAL 85 LEGAL 21 INTERNAL 653 FOI 48 PERSONAL 217 📁 MARK'S DOC 1189 📁 GEORGINA'S DOC 1 ⭐ 107 | 2026-09-03 13:53
← Back 📁 MARK'S DOC
Telus_Health_Response — p.1
📄 Telus Health Response | p.1
📝 Extracted Text (OCR)
eT E L U Ss Health TELUS Health (formerly LifeWorks)

200 Consilum Place, Scarborough,
Ontario M1H 3J3, Canada

T 289-800-8762 | F 1-877-863-9535
stephanie.kraft@telushealth.com

August 14, 2026

Review Division

Workers’ Compensation Board of BC
PO Box 2071 Stn. Terminal
Vancouver, BC V6B 3S4

VIA PORTAL

To Whom It May Concern:

Re: HOLAND, Mark
Review Number: R0360901
Claim Number: 42647461

Date of Decision: March 23, 2026

TELUS Health represents the employer. Thank you for providing us with the worker’s submission.
The worker is appealing the WSBC decision dated March 9, 2026, that does not allow the claim.

The worker reported that he was participating in a training course between January 12, 2026 and
January 25, 2026. This training took place in a classroom that had two large racks of computer
services directly behind where they were seated, which caused pain in the left ear, headaches,
and stress related symptoms.

In the decision under appeal, the Claims Adjudicator concluded that the worker’s claim does not
meet the requirements for claim acceptance under Section 134(1) of the Act. The Claims
Adjudicator relied on the opinion of the Board Audiologist (the “BA”) that based on the current
evidence, the main driving factors of the complaints are likely related to the pre-existing and non-
occupational conditions of migraines and noise sensitivity.

We now refer to the Clinic Opinion dated March 20, 2026 where the BA opined the following:

e Inthe worker's case he reported exposure to noise from a computer server fan. Examples
of acoustic events that are intense enough to potentially result in acoustic trauma include
explosions and gunshots. While the fans were subjectively loud, it would not have
reached levels capable of causing acoustic trauma.

e The worker's employer conducted a noise survey in the training simulation room of March
6, 2026. The noise data taken from the workstation that was approximately 1 meter from
the two server racks indicated an average exposure level of 57.6 dBA and a peak of 86.7
dBC. The measured noise levels in the training simulation room are well below hazardous
levels.

e There are pre-incident industrial audiograms on file from October 2023 to September
2025. There is also a post-incident audiogram from January 30, 2026. A comparison of
the pre-incident results from September 2025 and the post-incident results from January
30, 2026 show that the worker’s hearing thresholds have remained stable. Differences of

1