If a licensed physical therapist is found safe, competent, and to have caused no patient harm — yet still faces severe sanctions — what standards should protect a professional license?

This petition calls for clearer rules, better due process, and balanced regulation that strengthens public trust.

——————————

THE CORE ISSUE

Every day, licensed professionals make decisions that affect the lives, health, safety, and well-being of the people they serve.

Public confidence in licensing boards depends on their ability to protect patients while applying clear, evidence-based, consistent, and fair standards.

This petition asks one central question:

If findings of “safe and competent care with no patient harm” are not sufficient to protect a professional license, then what standards should govern disciplinary decisions?

This is not merely about one practitioner.

It is about ensuring disciplinary systems across healthcare professions are transparent, predictable, and grounded in due process — outcomes that benefit both patients and the professionals who serve them.

——————————

WHAT HAPPENED

After more than 20 years of practice as a Virginia-licensed physical therapist and licensed massage therapist, without a finding of patient harm, my professional career became the subject of disciplinary proceedings involving the recommendation of pelvic floor therapy, a recognized area of physical therapy practice, resulting in a multi-year suspension and ongoing restrictions.  

For two decades, I practiced as a licensed physical therapist and massage therapist in Virginia with:

• No prior disciplinary history
• No patient harm findings
• More than 110,000 patient treatments performed
• Longstanding physician referrals
• More than 300 patient statements supporting my care

The proceedings involved allegations that were unequivocally inconsistent with contemporaneous medical documentation, sworn testimony, expert opinion, and established professional teachings.

——————————

TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS

MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF PRACTICE

Practiced as a licensed physical therapist and massage therapist with no prior disciplinary history.

MORE THAN 110,000 PATIENT TREATMENTS

Provided care to thousands of patients over two decades without a finding of patient harm.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED 

Proceedings were initiated regarding recommendations related to pelvic floor therapy, a recognized area of physical therapy practice.

INDEPENDENT EXPERT REVIEW CONFIRMS THE CARE WAS APPROPRIATE AND WITHIN STANDARDS

A leading national expert in pelvic health physical therapy has reviewed the actual patient records and clinical notes in this case and reached clear conclusions.

Dr. Holly Tanner, DPT, has more than 30 years of experience as a physical therapist. She holds advanced board certifications in both Orthopedics and Women’s Health. She helped develop the national certification program for pelvic rehabilitation providers and trains other therapists across the country through the Herman & Wallace Pelvic Rehabilitation Institute. She has personally treated thousands of patients with pelvic floor therapy, including internal techniques.

After carefully reviewing the patient’s chart, referral notes, and all related documents, Dr. Tanner concluded:

• Every treatment that was questioned was clinically appropriate and within the normal, accepted standards of physical therapy practice.
• The care followed standard guidelines used by physical therapists across the country.
• There was no evidence that the therapist did anything outside accepted professional standards.

Specific Findings Made Easy to Understand

Dry needling treatment 

• The therapist performed dry needling on a muscle in the hip/pelvis area.
• Dr. Tanner confirmed this was appropriate because it matched the patient’s documented muscle and joint problems, and the patient’s own physician had prescribed dry needling.

Hands-on treatment to the chest and upper body muscles

• The therapist used hands-on techniques to release tight muscles in the chest and upper trunk that were contributing to the patient’s neck pain, headaches, and poor posture (common after pregnancy when carrying a baby on one side).
• Dr. Tanner stated this treatment is a recognized and accepted approach for these problems.
• The patient gave informed consent, chose not to have anyone else present in the room, and a drape was used to protect privacy.
• The patient’s headaches improved after this treatment.

Recommendation for pelvic floor therapy

• On one visit, the patient’s main complaint that day was mid-back pain.
• When the therapist gently worked on a deep muscle in the pelvis/hip area from the outside, the patient’s mid-back pain eased during the session.
• This gave a clear clinical reason to recommend pelvic floor therapy (which can involve gentle internal techniques).
• Dr. Tanner confirmed this was clinically appropriate and within the prevailing standard of care.

Bottom Line from the Expert

Dr. Tanner wrote:

“In my careful review of the documents… I see nothing to indicate that Mr. Roberts did anything that was clinically inappropriate or outside the prevailing standard of care among physical therapists.”

She also reviewed the earlier disciplinary orders and other patient records. Her conclusion remained the same: nothing she saw suggests the therapist cannot or would not practice physical therapy safely and competently.

This independent expert review — from one of the most respected voices in pelvic health physical therapy in the United States — confirms that the care provided followed accepted professional standards, respected patient consent and autonomy, and produced measurable improvement for the patient.

——————————

BOARD FINDINGS
The Virginia Board of Physical Therapy ultimately concluded that I was:

• Safe and Competent
• Not Responsible for Patient Harm
• Not Proven to Have Violated Standards of Care

FINAL OUTCOME
Despite those findings, the proceedings resulted in:

• Multi-year suspension
• Significant practice restrictions
• Professional and financial consequences
• National reporting consequences

——————————

THE CENTRAL CONTRADICTION

The Virginia Board of Physical Therapy ultimately concluded that I was:

✅ SAFE & COMPETENT
✅ NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PATIENT HARM
✅ NOT PROVEN TO HAVE VIOLATED STANDARDS OF CARE 

Yet the proceedings still resulted in:

❌ Multi-year suspension
❌ Severe ongoing restrictions
❌ Loss of livelihood
❌ National reporting consequences

The petition does not ask you to judge the specifics of this case. It asks policymakers and the public to consider whether current systems strike the right balance between patient protection and fundamental fairness.

That question extends far beyond one therapist, one board, or one profession.

——————————

WHY THIS MATTERS  

Every American depends upon licensed professionals.

We trust healthcare providers, teachers, attorneys, engineers, and countless others because professional licensing systems are intended to protect the public through fair, consistent, and evidence-based oversight.

Professional regulation serves two important purposes:

• Protecting the public
• Ensuring discipline is administered through clear standards, objective evidence, and fair procedures

Public confidence depends on both.

When standards are unclear, expectations appear difficult to predict, or disciplinary outcomes appear difficult to reconcile with the underlying findings, important questions arise regarding fairness, consistency, transparency, and accountability.

These concerns affect:

• Healthcare professionals
• Patients
• Educators
• Attorneys
• Engineers
• And anyone whose livelihood depends upon a professional license

——————————

KEY FACTS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD

According to the proceedings, testimony, and official record:

• No complaint was filed by a patient who received pelvic floor therapy from me.
• More than 300 patient statements supporting my care were submitted during the proceedings.
• Dr. Holly Tanner, the only qualified pelvic health specialist to testify, stated that the care and recommendations were within the standard of practice.
• Contemporaneous medical documentation differed from key allegations raised during the proceedings.
• Questions arose regarding whether disciplinary expectations were clearly established and consistently applied at the time the care was provided.
• The Virginia Board of Physical Therapy ultimately concluded that I was safe and competent and not responsible for patient harm.
• Despite those findings, significant disciplinary sanctions remained in place.
• Patients who had previously sought care from me lost access to an experienced provider.

These facts raise broader questions about how professional disciplinary systems should balance public protection, due process, clearly established standards, and evidence-based decision-making.

——————————

QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS

According to testimony, court proceedings, and the administrative record, issues raised during the disciplinary process included:

• Questions regarding the retroactive application of newly interpreted standards
• Questions regarding whether professional expectations were clearly established and consistently applied
• Reimposition of substantially similar sanctions after due process concerns were identified by a court
• Questions regarding the completeness of portions of the appellate record
• Questions regarding the separation of investigative, advisory, and adjudicative functions
• Questions regarding consistency in the application of investigative procedures and administrative requirements

In addition, testimony from the DHP Investigators during the proceedings indicated that:

• Significant exculpatory evidence remained unreviewed within investigative files for extended periods of time
• Certain medical records and consent documentation were not included in investigative summaries
• Portions of the investigative process did not consistently follow published procedures and Administrative Process Act requirements

These issues raise broader questions about how disciplinary systems can best ensure fairness, transparency, accountability, and public confidence while continuing to protect patients and uphold professional standards.

——————————

WHY THIS MATTERS TO PATIENTS

Professional regulation exists to protect patients.

Patients also benefit when regulatory systems are transparent, consistent, and grounded in clearly established standards.

When experienced clinicians leave practice or face significant restrictions, patients may experience:

• Reduced access to care
• Longer wait times
• Disruption of established provider relationships
• Fewer options when seeking specialized treatment

These concerns can be particularly significant in areas such as pelvic health, where provider shortages already exist in many communities.

Patients also have an important interest in participating in their own healthcare decisions and maintaining access to qualified providers.

Informed adults should be able to:

• discuss treatment options with their providers,
• make informed decisions regarding their care,
• continue treatment with qualified clinicians they trust,
• and participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their healthcare experience.

Strong healthcare systems protect patient safety, professional accountability, patient autonomy, and access to care simultaneously.

——————————

WHAT WE ARE ASKING VIRGINIA LEADERS TO DO

This petition is about strengthening confidence in professional regulation for practitioners, patients, and the public.

We respectfully ask the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT), Virginia lawmakers, courts, regulatory agencies, and professional licensing boards to consider the following reforms:

ENSURE CLEAR STANDARDS BEFORE DISCIPLINE
Require professional standards, expectations, and disciplinary criteria to be clearly published and accessible before they may be used as a basis for disciplinary action.

PROHIBIT RETROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT
Prevent agencies from imposing discipline based upon interpretations, expectations, or standards that were not clearly established at the time the care was provided.

PROTECT DUE PROCESS
Ensure that every licensee receives a fair, impartial, and transparent process, including meaningful consideration of all relevant evidence, expert testimony, and exculpatory information.

STRENGTHEN INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT
Establish independent review mechanisms in cases involving severe sanctions, lenghty suspensions, or significant restrictions on professional practice.

REQUIRE EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING
Ensure disciplinary findings remain tied to objective evidence, documented facts, established standards of practice, and reasoned conclusions supported by the record.

IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Promote transparency in disciplinary proceedings, board deliberations, voting procedures, and appellate records to strengthen public trust and institutional accountability.

SUPPORT REHABILITATION AND PROFESSIONAL RETENTION
Encourage disciplinary systems that prioritize education, remediation, and professional improvement whenever appropriate rather than unnecessarily career-ending outcomes.

PROTECT PATIENT AUTONOMY
Safeguard the right of informed adult patients to participate in healthcare decisions and preserve access to qualified providers whenever patient safety is not at risk.

——————————

WHY SIGN THIS PETITION?

Public confidence in professional regulation depends not only on protecting patients, but also on ensuring that disciplinary decisions are understandable, evidence-based, transparent, and consistently applied.

Please sign and share this petition if you believe in:

• Due process
• Transparent healthcare regulation
• Patient autonomy
• Evidence-based oversight
• Consistent and accountable enforcement
• Fair administrative process

Share it with:

• Healthcare professionals
• Patients
• Journalists
• Civil liberties advocates
• Lawmakers
• Attorneys
• Anyone concerned about government accountability and fair administrative process 

Because confidence in professional regulation is strongest when patient protection, professional accountability, and fundamental principles of fairness are advanced together.

Scott Roberts, PT, LMT

Virginia Licensed Physical Therapist & Massage Therapist 

——————————

MEDIA INQUIRIES

For press, journalists, or media outlets:

Scott Roberts, PT, LMT

Email: scott@robertspt.com

Phone: (804) 620-7805 

I am available for interviews and can provide additional documents and expert contacts (with permission).