← Back
📁 MARK'S DOC
🔗 Linked Evidence
Review_Division_Submission_1_of_3 — p.10
📄 Review Division Submission 1 of 3 | p.10
📄 Review Division Submission 1 of 3 | p.10
📝 Extracted Text (OCR)
WCB-2026-0484 Claims Records Page 34 of 34 ) ‘ ¥ ran ie 3 oy x S . Sau t.- To: Heather Gillis, Occupational Audiologist 7 NS a rd N\ is From: Anne Jopling, OHO NG py Saye Date: October 30, 1992 * * Sy 8.22 YR Subject: Claims Investigation - Y= 2 ea & hb x Following your request of September 21, 1992, I conducted a noise survey at Vancouver General VSN Hospital for the purpose of obtaining noise level readings during the operation of a Digital Decwriter LA . 120 printer, Results were as follows: t % Reading Location Result 3 } 1 face of printer 73-14 dBA R 2 four feet from printer 70-71 dBA (typical working distance) 3 background noise (computer 71-72 dBA processing room) During this noise survey the printer of interest was located in a central computer processing area, therefore the background noise sources were likely higher than those present in the claimants work area. Asa result , readings 1 and 2 may be somewhat elevated from those experienced by this claimant during the routine use of this printer. As you can see, the levels measured support your earlier conclusion which stated that computer printers emit noise in the low to mid-70 dB range. ‘These levels are well below the maximum permissible concentrations outlined in the Industrial Health and SAfety Regulation 13.21(3). If you require furhter information regarding this survey please call me at local 5692. (cap4) Anne M. Jopling, CIH, ROH Occupational Hygiene Officer Field Services Department INSERT SCREENSHOT / EXHIBIT — FOI Release p.34/34 — 1992 VGH Decwriter LA 120 printer noise survey memo ] II.C Timing of Employer Notification Relative to the Worker's Notification The decision under review was recorded as effective March 20, 2026. In the same window, the worker received a letter dated March 13, 2026 from BCRTC management (Senior Manager, Train Operations) removing him from Control Operator training and returning him to his prior position effective March 31, 2026, with no accommodation offered despite an active WorkSafeBC claim. The worker submits that the proximity and sequencing of these events — a claim decision recorded internally on March 20 but not communicated to the worker until March 23, alongside adverse employment action taken by the employer in the same general period — raises a legitimate question as to whether the employer had visibility into, or acted in anticipation of, the claim outcome before the worker himself was notified. The worker is not in a position to independently verify WorkSafeBC's internal communications with the employer, and respectfully requests that the Review Division consider, as part of this review, whether the file contains any record of employer contact or notification regarding this decision prior to March 23, 2026. If such contact occurred, the worker submits this bears