0 to 10 dB are within test-retest variability and are not considered to be significant.
Therefore, there is no evidence of any significant changes in hearing thresholds since
September 2025.

e The described incident and evidence on file are not consistent with acoustic trauma.
Further, the noise from the computer server fans was not sudden or unexpected. The
worker also did not report any symptoms until around one week after the training course
began. Overall, the incident is not consistent with acoustic shock either.

e The worker's pre-existing history of migraines is non-occupational. As mentioned in the
medical records and in his correspondence with the instructor, his sensitivity to noise is
also pre-existing and non-occupational.

We would agree with the BA’s opinion. We agree that there is no hearing loss attributable to the
incident in January 2026 as the worker’s hearing is stable compared to the September 2025
audiogram. We also note that the noise exposure levels of 57.6 dBA would not be hazardous to
the hearing. We therefore submit that the BA was correct in concluding that there was no noise
induced hearing loss.

We would agree with the Claims Adjudicator’s decision, as it is based on the reasoned opinion of
the BA. We submit that the BA’s opinion is in keeping with WorkSafeBC law and policy, as well as
the file evidence.

With regard to the worker's stress and migraines, given that there was no noise-induced hearing
loss as a result of the January 2026 incident, we submit the worker is not entitled to compensation
for this condition as per WorkSafeBC law and policy.

Respectfully submitted.

Stephanie Kraft, Licensed Paralegal

Appeals Specialist, National Workers’ Compensation Services
TELUS Health

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