8. Mischaracterization of the Sensory Profile and Post-Injury Psychological Sequelae

The Opinion references the worker's heightened sensory sensitivity as part of the “pre-existing and non-occupational”
picture used to explain his symptoms away from occupational causation, The worker's heightened sensory sensitivity is
consistent with an autistic neurological profile (formal assessment pending), which the Advisor was aware of. The
Opinion uses this sensitivity as evidence of a pre-existing condition without addressing it as context for why a
sustained, resonant noise source produced the documented clinical severity in this particular worker — which is the
opposite use a sensory profile should serve in a biological-plausibility assessment: it explains susceptibility to this
specific exposure, rather than explaining it away.

Separately, the acute psychological symptoms that emerged from February 2026-onward ~—- which the Opinion folds
into the “pre-existing” picture through its general framing — did not exist before the January 12, 2026 exposure. They
are properly understood as sequelae of the injury and its aftermath, not as antecedents to it, andthe new psychiatric
medication regimen documented in Section 7, above, is consistent with that timing.

ho identified

9. Evidentiary Imbalance in the Claim File

The worker notes an imbalance in the medical records the claim file was built around. The file includes high-resolution
gastrointestinal endoscopy imagery from a 2022 procedure (e.g., file p.395), unrelated to the ear and neurological
injury at issue, while it does not contain contemporary otescopic imaging or specialized neurological imaging of the
actual January 2026 exposure and its site.

The worker submits this raises a Icgitimate question, appropriate for the Review Division rather than this document to
resolve, about whether the file-gathering exercise was directed at understanding the mechanism and timeline of the
January 2026 exposure, or at compiling historical material capable of supporting a pre-existing-condition narrative
regardless of mechanism. At minimum, an assessment that had access to four-year-old, unrelated gastrointestinal
imaging but not to contemporaneous otoscopic or neurological imaging of the injury site was working from an
incomplete evidentiary base, and the worker asks that any renewed medical opinion be built on a file that includes the
specialist evidence catalogued in Sections 3-8, above.

10. Active Regulatory Proceedings Regarding the Author of the Clinical Opinion

Independently of the medical rebuttal set out in Sections 3~9, above, the worker has filed, and is actively pursuing, two
regulatory proceedings concerning the manner in which the March 20, 2026 Clinical Opinion was prepared. Both are
ongoing and are noted here for the Review Division’s awareness; neither substitutes for the medical evidence set out
above, and both concern the reliability of the Opinion as a. document rather than the underlying clinical questions it
purports to answer.

On May 14, 2026, the worker filed a professional conduct complaint against Flora Pang with the College of Health and
Care Professionals of BC (CHCPBC), supported by records abtained through a Freedom of Information request. The
complaint concerns the Opinion’s comparison of the worker's workstation noise to “WorkSafeBC noise data” drawn
from “a hospital data processing area” and “a BC Ferry data center.” The FOI records establish that:

e The “hospital” benchmark was collected October 30, 1992, and measured a Digital Deewriter LA 120
dot-matrix printer — not a server or comparable modern equipment.

© The “BC Ferry” benchmark was a data-center noise log dated March 22, 1991.

000345