WORKING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Memo
(continued)

Worker last name First name Middle initial WorkSafeBC claim number
HOLAND MARK 42647461

southeast corner of the room, approximately 1 meter from the nearest computer
simulation desk. Arcose itself identified the source as server racks not computer
fans.

The WorkSafeBC Prevention Services Inspection Report #202618842990A dated
February 25, 2026 states the employer representative stated the room contains a
server rack which produces some noise.

Every document on this claim file identifies the acoustic source as server racks. Not
computer fans. The clinical opinion is the only document in this entire file that
describes the source as computer fans.

This misidentification is not semantic. Industrial server racks and computer fans are
categorically different acoustic sources with fundamentally different acoustic
profiles, frequency characteristics, resonance properties, and physiological effects.
Every comparison made in this clinical opinion — to BC Ferry data centers, hospital
computer processing areas, typical office environments, and average conversation
— is predicated on this misidentification and is therefore invalid.

A clinical 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.

68B33

(R01/09) Page 2 of 9