← Back
📁 MARK'S DOC
🔗 Linked Evidence
Review_Division_Submission_1_of_3 — p.5
📄 Review Division Submission 1 of 3 | p.5
📄 Review Division Submission 1 of 3 | p.5
📝 Extracted Text (OCR)
The Clinical Opinion's central environmental-safety argument compares the OMC1 Training Room to “a BC Ferry data center” and “a central computer processing area of a large hospital,” with no date given for either comparison in the final document. A FIPPA release under file WCB-2026-0484 (page 24 of 34) contains the Advisor's own draft processing notes, which identify the same two comparisons with their dates: the BC Ferry data from 1991, and the hospital data from 1992 — 35 and 34 years old respectively, drawn from a marine vessel machine room and a dot-matrix impact printer survey. Neither environment is acoustically comparable to a 2026 high-density server cooling array in an occupied classroom. The dates “1991” and “1992” are present in the draft and do not appear anywhere in the final Clinical Opinion (Claim File pp. 305-306), including its references list, which is otherwise composed of academic sources dated 1987-2014. A reviewing physician or adjudicator reading the final Opinion would have no basis to identify the comparison data as decades old or as drawn from categorically unrelated equipment. The worker submits that the sequence — dates present in the draft, absent from the final — shows the Advisor had the dates available, used the underlying figures, and removed the dates before distribution. An evidentiary basis for a benefit denial that has been altered in this way between draft and final form cannot be relied upon without independent review. Evidence: Draft vs. Final Comparison