The worker's heightened sensory sensitivity is consistent with an autistic neurological profile (formal
assessment currently underway), which the Advisor was aware of. A moderate, sustained noise source — 37.6
dBA average, well below any conventional hazard threshold, exactly as the worker's own January 22, 2026
report acknowledged — is not expected to injure a neurotypical auditory system, and the worker has never
claimed that it did. The relevant clinical question is why this specific, moderate-level, sustained exposure
produced a severe, multi-system reaction — escalating migraines, TMJ and tensor tympani involvement,
sleep-disrupting nocturnal spasms, and a first-ever emergency presentation — in this specific worker, A
documented sensory processing profile, confirmed audiologically by the Wavefront hyperacusis findings in
Section 6, above, is the answer to that question. It explains susceptibility to this specific exposure; it does not
explain the exposure 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, and
the new psychiatric medication regimen documented in Section 8, above, is consistent with that timing.

“The Clinical Opinion dated March 20, 2026, prepared by an audiologist advisor, relies on a repetitive,
non-expert neurological labeling of the worker's condition to Justify claim denial. This administrative
assessment is directly contradicted by the clinical findings of Dr. Navjot Chaudhary, a specialist neurology and
pain physician, who identified the workplace acoustic enviranment as the causative trigger for the acute
destabilization of the worker's health,”

10, 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 otoscopic imaging or specialized
neurological imaging of the actual January 2026 exposure and its site.

The worker submits this raises a legitimate 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 worker's own January 22, 2026 report and the specialist
evidence catalogued in Sections 4-9, above.

1!. Active Regulatory Proceedings Regarding the Author of the Clinica! Opinion

Independently of the medical rebuttal set out in Sections 2-10, 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. obtained 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 FOL
records establish that:

¢ The “hospital” benchmark was collected October 30, 1992, and. measured a Digital Decwriter 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.

000367