© Draft notes obtained by FO! 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 1991 and 1992 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.

Saurees CHCPBC Case ID: 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 WorkSateBC 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 withhold 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.

Sourée: OIPC File INV-F-26-01595; WorkSafeRC FO! File WCRB-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, ona fact pattern distinct from, but related to,
the clinical deficiencies addressed in Sections 2-10 above. The worker will provide the outcome of both
proceedings to the Review Division as an addendim once available.

12. Conclusion and Requested Relief

The March 20, 2026 Clinical Opinion, and the August 14, 2026 TELUS Health submission that adopts it
without independent analysis, deny 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 worker’s.own January 22, 2026 report already
establishes that conventional acoustic injury was never his claim; the migraine baseline was managed, not
merely present, until the exposure destabilized it: the mechanism both submissions tested for is not the
mechanism any treating specialist has identified; the audiological asymmetry and hyperacusis findings both
submissions would need to address are absent from them; 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 baseline disrupted within days of exposure; and the sensory and psychological sequelae
discussion treats post-injury symptoms as pre-existing ones, and the worker's sensory profile as a reason to
dismiss the-claim rather than the reason this exposure was significant.

‘The worker requests that the Review Division set aside the March 20, 2026 Clinical Opinion, decline to adopt
the TELUS Health submission of August 14, 2026 to the extent it relies on that Opinion, and refer this claim
for a fresh medical opinion informed by the specialist evidence set out in this document — including the
worker's own January 22, 2026 contemporaneous report and the forthcoming Pacific ENT addendum from Dr.
Abdalkhani's July 16, 2026 consultation — rather than by audiological criteria alone.

13. Source Documents

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

000368