3/22/26, 11:51 PM Gmail - FORMAL REBUTTAL OF WORKSAFEBC CLINICAL OPINION Flora Pang M.Sc., RAUD, Aud(C) — Audiologist Advisor O...

computer processing areas, typical office environments, and average conversation — is predicated on this
misidentification and is therefore invalid.

Acclinical opinion built on a misidentified acoustic source cannot form a valid basis for claim adjudication.

ERROR 2 — WRONG INJURY MECHANISMS ASSESSED

The clinical opinion evaluates two mechanisms of injury — acoustic trauma and acoustic shock — and concludes
the incident is consistent with neither.

| did not claim acoustic trauma. | did not claim acoustic shock.

Acoustic trauma is defined in the clinical opinion itself as a sudden hearing loss from a single exposure to intense
impulse noise at approximately 130 dB SPL or greater. Examples given include explosions and gunshots. This
mechanism has no relevance to my reported injury and | have never claimed it.

Acoustic shock is defined as triggered by sudden onset unexpected intense sound most often in call centre
operators using headsets. My exposure was sustained and continuous over 10 days. It was not sudden. It was
not unexpected after the first day. This mechanism also has no relevance to my reported injury and | have never
claimed it.

My reported mechanism of injury is sustained exposure to frequency-specific resonance from industrial server
equipment triggering tensor tympani muscle spasm, leading to trigeminal nerve activation, autonomic
dysregulation, and a self-reinforcing nocturnal feedback loop.

This mechanism — Tonic Tensor Tympani Syndrome — does not appear anywhere in this five page clinical
opinion. It is not assessed. It is not addressed. It is not ruled out. It is not acknowledged to exist.

Flora Pang constructed detailed refutations of two injury mechanisms | never claimed and rendered no opinion
whatsoever on the mechanism | did claim.

This is not a clinical opinion on my injury. It is a clinical opinion on injuries | do not have.

ERROR 3 — DISMISSAL OF ASYMMETRIC THRESHOLD SHIFT WITHOUT ADEQUATE ANALYSIS

The clinical opinion states that differences of 0 to 10 dB are within test-retest variability and are not considered
significant. It concludes there is no evidence of any significant changes in hearing thresholds since September
2025.

This conclusion fails to address the clinical significance of asymmetry.

My post-incident audiogram from January 30, 2026 shows a 10dB threshold shift specifically at 8kHz in my left
ear relative to the September 2025 baseline. This shift is unilateral and frequency specific. It is not distributed
evenly across both ears or across all frequencies.

Asymmetric threshold shifts are clinically significant precisely because they indicate a specific unilateral acoustic
event rather than bilateral age related change or test-retest measurement noise. The clinical literature
consistently identifies asymmetric sensorineural hearing changes as requiring further investigation regardless of
magnitude.

Flora Pang dismissed the shift as within variability without addressing the asymmetry. A complete clinical opinion
on an auditory injury claim must address not only the magnitude of threshold change but its laterality and
frequency specificity.

The 10dB asymmetric shift at 8kHz in the left ear — the ear | consistently reported as more severely affected —
was dismissed without adequate clinical analysis.

ERROR 4 — UNCRITICAL ACCEPTANCE OF COMPROMISED ACOUSTIC DATA

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=7 1cd554d908&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-7285702432806815945&simpl=msg-a:r47323213862129... 2/7