e Draft notes obtained by FOL show the Respondent had access to, and recorded, both dates before the final
Opinion was issued.

¢ The final Opinion’s References page omits both the {991 and {992 dates and the equipment identified,
presenting the comparators without disclosing their age or source.

The worker's position, as put to the College, is that using 34- to 35-year-old measurements of a mechanical, impulsive
printer and an.unrelated 1991 data-center log — without disclosing their age or origin — to dismiss.a 2026 acoustic
hazard claim is not a defensible clinical comparison, and that its omission from the Opinion’s own References page is
material to the reliability of the document as a whole. As of July 15, 2026, CHCPBC confirmed the Respondent’s
materials were received at the end of June 2026 and that the matter remains in queue for submission to the Deputy
Registrar for disposition, with a College-estimated timeline of 60 to 90 days from that date.

Source: CHCPBC Case 1D: 2026-057; correspondence with investigator Raul Franco, May 14-July 16, 2026.

Separately, the worker has an active file open with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC
(OIPC), requesting review of heavy redactions WorkSafeBC applied to pages 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, and 34 of its May 4,
2026 response to the worker’s FOI request (File WCB-2026-0484). The worker’s position, as put to the OIPC, is that
these redactions witbhoid factual material — specifically, the:same.draft-note record showing the Respondent’s
awareness of the 1991/1992 source dates described-above —~- and that FIPPA s.13(2)(a) does not permit a public body
to withhold factual material on that basis. This review was opened May 19, 2026 (OIPC File INV-F-26-01595) and, as
of June 4, 2026, is in queue for investigator assignment.

Source: OIPC File INV-F-26-011595; WorkSafeBC FOI File WCB-2026-0484.
The worker raises both proceedings here only to note that the reliability of the Opinion’s referencing and disclosure
practices is itself under independent regulatory review, on a fact pattern distinct from, but related to, the clinical

deficiencies addressed in Sections 3-9 above. The-worker will provide the outcome of both proceedings to the Review
Division.as an addendum once available.

11, Conclusion and Requested Relief

The March 20, 2026 Clinical Opinion denies occupational causation for the worker's ear injury on the basis that his
symptoms are better explained by pre-existing, non-occupational migraine and noise sensitivity. Every factual pillar of
that conclusion is addressed, and rebutted, above: the migraine baseline was managed, not merely present, until the
exposure destabilized it; the mechanism the Opinion tested for is not the mechanism any treating specialist has
identified; the audiological asymmetry and hyperacusis findings the Opinion would need to address are absent from it;
the Opinion's own quoted ER record already establishes the occupational trigger it declines to apply under the Thin
Skull Rule; the prescription record shows a stable bascline disrupted within days of exposure; and the sensory and
psychological sequelae discussion treats post-injury symptoms as pre-existing ones.

The worker requests that the Review Division set aside the March 20, 2026 Clinical Opinion and refer this claim for a
fresh medical opinion informed by the specialist evidence set out in this document — including the forthcoming Pacific
ENT addendum from Dr. Abdaikhani's July 16, 2026 consultation — rather than by audiological criteria alone.

12. Source Documents
—— ee

e A— WorkSafeBC Clinical Opinion, Flora Pang, M.Sc., RAUD, Aud(C), March 20, 2026 (Form 68B86).
e¢ B— Royal Columbian Hospital Emergency Record, January 30, 2026 (Meditech Report ID 3001-00357).

e C—Dpr, Idris Samad, MD, FRCSC, Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery, consultation report, May 27,
2026.

@ D— Dr. Navjot Chaudhary, Neurology/Pain, Surrey iScope Concussion & Pain Clinics, clinical report, June
29, 2026.

000346