How Can a Government Agency Punish Someone for a Case It Had No Legal Authority to Hear?

What Happens When a Government Agency Acts Outside Its Legal Authority?

Thank you for continuing to stand with me. Every signature and every share helps shine a light on what I believe is a serious failure of accountability within Virginia's regulatory system.

This update focuses on the actions of the Virginia Board of Nursing in Case 210911 involving my massage therapy license.

A Board Regulating Something It Doesn't Have Authority to Regulate

Every government agency has limits on its authority.

The Virginia Board of Nursing regulates massage therapists.

It does not regulate physical therapists, physical therapy patients, or physical therapy treatment.

Yet that is exactly what I contend happened in my case.

The investigative record spans 964 pages and is filled with documentation of physical therapy, including:

• Physician and urogynecologist referrals for physical therapy
• Medicare physical therapy documentation
• Pelvic floor physical therapy treatment
• Dry needling
• Fascial manipulation
• Physical therapy evaluations, reassessments, and plans of care

There is no massage therapy treatment documented. No massage therapy billing. No massage therapy plan of care.

Despite this, the Board pursued disciplinary action against my massage therapy license based on a physical therapy case.

If government agencies can simply ignore the limits placed on their authority, those limits no longer protect anyone.

Changing One Word Changed the Entire Case

The medical records consistently identified the individual as a patient, because she was receiving physical therapy.

However, in the Statement of Allegations, the Board changed that terminology to "Client A."

That single change allowed physical therapy facts to be presented under massage therapy statutes and the NCBTMB Code of Ethics.

Without changing the language, I contend there was no basis for the Board of Nursing to claim jurisdiction over the matter.

What makes this especially concerning is that the Board's own legal counsel has advised Board members and staff that Virginia's laws and regulations "must stand on their own" and that Board members and staff may not further interpret them.

Government agencies should not be able to expand their authority simply by changing the words used to describe a case.

The Process Raised Even More Questions

The jurisdictional concerns were accompanied by procedural issues that should concern anyone who believes government agencies must follow the law.

Among them:

• A subpoena ordered a witness to appear at a Formal Hearing, even though the proceeding was only an informal conference.
• The subpoena notice itself was mailed after the required timeframe.
• Confidential medical records belonging to four completely unrelated patients were produced twice after the files had supposedly already been reviewed.
• The Administrative Proceedings Division provided the Special Conference Committee with the Board of Physical Therapy's disciplinary order while withholding my already-filed Notice of Appeal and Petition challenging that order.
• At the same time, the physical therapy issues were already pending before the only licensing board that actually regulates physical therapists.

Each of these issues deserves scrutiny.

Taken together, they raise significant questions about whether the process was conducted fairly and within the Board's legal authority.

A Suspension Was Reported Before Any Hearing Ever Occurred

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this case happened before the informal conference even began.

Before evidence was presented.

Before the Board voted.

Before any order existed.

The Virginia Board of Nursing reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) that my massage therapy license had already been suspended.

It never was.

My attorney had to intervene to have that report corrected.

Yet even today, the NPDB still reflects that my license was later "reinstated," creating a permanent public record that implies a suspension occurred when no suspension ever existed.

Government records should reflect what actually happened, not create disciplinary history that never occurred.

Why This Matters

This case is about much more than one professional license.

It is about whether government agencies will be held to the same laws they enforce.

If an agency can prosecute conduct outside its legal authority, rewrite terminology to fit statutes that otherwise would not apply, omit important court filings from decision-makers, and report disciplinary actions that never occurred, then the protections of due process become increasingly fragile.

Every citizen deserves a government that follows the law as carefully as it expects its citizens to do.

That is why I continue this fight.

Not simply to restore my own reputation, but to help ensure that regulatory agencies remain accountable to the limits placed upon their authority.

Thank you for standing with me and for continuing to share this petition.

Scott J. Roberts, PT, LMT