6/5/26, 602 PM Gmail - Naw Evidenco Submission - CASE ID: 2026-057 (Fiera Pang)

Pj Gmail ee

1D: 2026-057 (Flora Pang)

New Evidence Submission - CASE
1 messaga

mark holand oom
‘To: Raul Francog@chentc ong

The, May 14; 2028 at 6:44 PM

Dear Raul Franco,

' am writing to provide critical new evidence for the ongoing investigation regarding Case ID: 2026-057.
Through a recent Freedom of information (FOl) request, | have uncovered documents demonstrating that the
Respondent, Flora Pang, utilized significantly outdated and decontextualized benchmarks in her official clinical
opinion while intentionally Omitting their origins from the final record.

In her report, the Respondent dismissed the acoustic hazard at my workstation by Stating the noise favels. were
“consistent with WorkSafeBC noise data* from a hospital processing area and a. BC Ferry data center. The
attached FO! documents reveal that this comparison is clinically fundamentally flawed:

+ The “Hospital" Benchmark {1992): FOI record p034 confirms this data was collected on October 30,
1992, and specifically measured a Digital Decwriter LA 120 dot-matrix printer,

+ The “BC Forry” Benchmark (1991): FO} record p033 confirms this data center logging was conducted on
March 22, 1991.

« Intentional Omission of Context: Despite these sources being the primary basis for dismissing my claim,
they were completely omitted from the official “References* list provided in my case file {see Attachment
5).

Using 34-year-old data from mechanical, impulsive noise sources {dot-matrix printers) to dismiss a high-
frequency, continuous.tonal hazard from modem 2026 server fans is technically indefensible.

‘The following 5 attachments are Bravided as evidence of this misrepresentation:

1, Attachment 1 (FO! p024): The draft notes showing the Respondent had access {o the specific 1991/1992
dates and sources,

2. Attachment 2 (FO! p033): The original 1991 BC Ferry noise logging record.

3. Attachment 3 (FOI p034): The 1992 Vancouver General Hospital memo identifying the "Decwriter* printer
as the source.

4, Attachment 4 {Ctaim p305): The excerpt from the Respondent's final Opinion where she uses these
“similar noise sources” as a benchmark without disclosing their age or type.

5. Attachment 5 (Claim 306): The official References page from the final report, showing the intentional
exclusion of the 1991/1992 citations.

The contrast between the draft notes and the final report indicates a curated omission of facts designed to favor
a “safe” conclusion over an abjactive investigation.

Sincerely,
Mark Holand
Raihway Operations Professional

marktholand@gmail.com

Ditpsd’maa, poogle.com/mall Wh 7ike7 ted SS4d908 viewaplRsearcheatS permihidstyead-a 50320106045 198221 Basenptamss-a 1-345340214852637. 12

000309