Raul_Franco_Email_May_14 — p.1
📄 Raul Franco Email May 14 | p.1
📄 Raul Franco Email May 14 | p.1
📝 Extracted Text (OCR)
6/5/26, 6:02 PM Gmail - New Evidence Submission - CASE ID: 2026-057 (Flora Pang) a | Gr ! dail mark holand <marktholand@gmail.com> New Evidence Submission - CASE ID: 2026-057 (Flora Pang) 1 message mark holand <marktholand@gmail.com> Thu, May 14, 2026 at 6:44 PM To: Raul.Franco@chcpbc.org Dear Raul Franco, | am writing to provide critical new evidence for the ongoing investigation regarding Case ID: 2026-057. Through a recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request, | have uncovered documents demonstrating that the Respondent, Flora Pang, utilized significantly outdated and decontextualized benchmarks in her official clinical opinion while intentionally omitting their origins from the final record. In her report, the Respondent dismissed the acoustic hazard at my workstation by stating the noise levels were "consistent with WorkSafeBC noise data" from a hospital processing area and a BC Ferry data center. The attached FOI documents reveal that this comparison is clinically fundamentally flawed: ¢ The "Hospital" Benchmark (1992): FOI record p034 confirms this data was collected on October 30, 1992, and specifically measured a Digital Decwriter LA 120 dot-matrix printer. ¢« The "BC Ferry" Benchmark (1991): FOI record p033 confirms this data center logging was conducted on March 22, 1991. e Intentional Omission of Context: Despite these sources being the primary basis for dismissing my claim, they were completely omitted from the official "References" list provided in my case file (see Attachment 5). Using 34-year-old data from mechanical, impulsive noise sources (dot-matrix printers) to dismiss a high- frequency, continuous tonal hazard from modern 2026 server fans is technically indefensible. The following 5 attachments are provided as evidence of this misrepresentation: 1. Attachment 1 (FOI p024): The draft notes showing the Respondent had access to the specific 1991/1992 dates and sources. 2. Attachment 2 (FOI p033): The original 1991 BC Ferry noise logging record. 3. Attachment 3 (FOI p034): The 1992 Vancouver General Hospital memo identifying the "Decwriter" printer as the source. 4. Attachment 4 (Claim p305): The excerpt from the Respondent's final opinion where she uses these "similar noise sources" as a benchmark without disclosing their age or type. 5. Attachment 5 (Claim p306): The official References page from the final report, showing the intentional exclusion of the 1991/1992 citations. The contrast between the draft notes and the final report indicates a curated omission of facts designed to favor a "safe" conclusion over an objective investigation. Sincerely, Mark Holand Railway Operations Professional marktholand@gmail.com https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=7 1cd554d90&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r503201060451962218&simpl=msg-a:r-3453402 14852637... 1/2