None of these gaps would be dispositive alone. Together, they show two submissions that reached their
conclusion without engaging the claim actually made, and that the worker's own contemporaneous report and

subsequent specialist evidence directly rebut. This document sets out that rebuttal, source by. source, for the
Review Division.

2. The Worker's Claim, As Actually Made

Before addressing the Clinical Opinion's findings, the record should be corrected as to what claim is under
review. The worker filed a safety concern through the employer's MyHSE system on January 22, 2026 — three

weeks before the emergency room visit that first appears in his medical file, and nearly two-months before the
Clinical Opinion was written. That report states, in the worker's own words, at the time:

“While the noise levels are not high enough by Work Safe BC standards to require hearing protection (8S5dR
during Shrs), they aré much too high for an office or learning environment.”

“Tam prone to migraines and take steps at home and at work to minimize my exposure to excessive noise.”
~~ MYHSE Safety Concern Report #73625, Mark Holand, January 22, 2026

Two points follow directly from this record. First, the worker himself excluded conventional, threshold-based
hearing hazard from his own account of the problem before any of this became a compensation dispute —- this
Was not a position adopted for litigation purposes after the fact. Second, the worker identified his migraine
scusitivity as a pre-existing, actively managed condition in the very same contemporaneous document, which is
consistent with, not contradicted by, the managed-baseline evidence set out in Section 4, below.

The physical condition of the room itself is independently corroborated in the medical record. Dr. Abdaikhani's
Jwy 16, 2026 consultation report records the worker's history as occupational exposure to “industrial-sized
servers installed without permits at workplace in January: seated directly in front of servers with exposed side
panel and open ceiling panel for approximately 10 hours daily over 8 days.” This is not the worker's submission
describing his own photographs; it isa treating specialist's contemporaneous clinical history, taken
independently and consistent with the physical condition of the rack documented elsewhere in this claim.

Both the Clinical Opinion and the TELUS Health submission proceed as though the claim under review is that
the server fan noise was intense enough to cause acoustic trauma or acoustic shock, and devote the bulk of their
analysis to disproving that claim. The worker does not dispute that his exposure does not meet the technical
definitions of acoustic trauma or acoustic shock — he said as much, in writing, before the claim existed. The
error is that this was never the claim being made, and the January 22, 2026 report proves it was never the claim
being made. Sections 3-8, below, set out what the specialist record actually shows about the claim the worker
has in fact made: tensor tympani and TMJ dysfunction. arising from sustained exposure, in the context ofa
documented autistic sensory processing profile.

4. The Clinical Opinion and the TELUS Health Submission Under Review

‘The Opinion was requested by Sr. Adjudicator Jaylin Cassady on March 5, 2026, on the question of “biological
plausibility” — specifically, “what is the nature of the worker's complaints?” and “is the reported condition
above related to or consistent with the incident?” Ms. Pang answered both questions on March 20, 2026,
evaluating the claim exclusively within an audiological framework built around acoustic trauma and acoustic
shock, The employer's August 14, 2026 submission to the Review Division adopts that same framework
without independent analysis, restating the Opinion's audiogram and noise-survey findings and agreeing with
its conclusion.

“The described incident and evidence on file are not consistent with acoustic trauma ... Overall, the incident is
not consistent with acoustic shock either” —~ Clinical Opinion, F. Pang, March 20, 2026, pt

“Based on the evidence on file, the main driving factors of the worker's complaints are likely his pre-existing
and non-occupational conditions of migraines and noise sensitivity, rather than the incident itself.” — Clinical
Opinion, F. Pang, March 20, 2026, ps

000362