If findings of “safe and competent” are not enough to protect a professional license, then what is?

——————————

WHAT HAPPENED

After more than 20 years in practice without a single finding of patient harm, my career and livelihood were effectively destroyed under standards that did not exist at the time of treatment and still do not exist today.

My name is Scott Roberts.

I practiced as a licensed physical therapist and massage therapist in Virginia for more than two decades 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

My wife and I spent years building our practice and preparing to expand it.

Instead, my career was devastated after I recommended pelvic floor therapy, a recognized area of physical therapy practice.

The allegations relied on retroactively applied interpretations, disputed conclusions, and claims contradicted by contemporaneous medical records and sworn testimony.

Most importantly, the only qualified pelvic health expert who testified, Dr. Holly Tanner, stated the care and recommendations were within the standard of practice.

——————————

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 result was still:

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

How can both be true?

If findings of safety and competence are not enough to protect a professional license, then no licensed professional should feel secure under unclear or inconsistently applied standards.

——————————

WHY THIS CASE MATTERS BEYOND ONE PROFESSION

People across political and professional backgrounds support this petition because they believe professional discipline must remain tied to evidence, due process, and clearly defined standards.

This issue extends far beyond one therapist or one profession.

When oversight becomes disconnected from evidence, transparency, and consistently applied standards, every healthcare professional and every patient becomes vulnerable.

—————————— 
WHY LICENSED PROFESSIONALS SHOULD BE CONCERNED
If a licensing board can:

• reinterpret standards years after treatment occurred,
• apply expectations that were never formally published,
• disregard contemporaneous documentation,
• discount expert testimony,
• and still impose severe sanctions despite findings of safety and competence,

then no professional license is truly protected from arbitrary enforcement.

Not for:

• Physical Therapists
• Nurses
• Physicians
• Psychologists
• Chiropractors
• Attorneys
• Teachers
• or any professional governed by politically appointed boards

Nobody should lose their livelihood over standards that didn’t exist at the time of the treatment and still do not exist today.

——————————

WHY MANY PROFESSIONALS STAY SILENT

Many healthcare professionals privately express concern about cases like this but fear retaliation from licensing boards and regulatory agencies.

When agencies possess broad disciplinary authority under unclear standards, speaking publicly can feel professionally dangerous.

A system that can disregard evidence can intimidate anyone subject to its authority.

——————————

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

20+ YEARS IN PRACTICE
No disciplinary history

110,000+ TREATMENTS
No patient harm findings

COMPLAINTS FILED
Not from patients who actually received pelvic floor therapy

EXPERT TESTIMONY
Supported care and recommendations by Dr. Holly Tanner

BOARD FINDINGS
“Safe and competent”

FINAL OUTCOME
Multi-year suspension and severe restrictions

——————————

WHAT THE RECORD SHOWED

According to the proceedings and official record:

• No complaint was ever filed by a patient who actually received pelvic floor therapy from me
• More than 300 patient support statements were disregarded
• Expert testimony from Dr. Holly Tanner validating the recommendations and treatment approach was ignored
• Contemporaneous documentation contradicted key allegations
• Standards and expectations were interpreted retroactively
• Severe sanctions remained despite findings of safety and competence
• Patients lost access to an experienced provider despite no finding of patient harm

This case raises a broader question:

Should government agencies have the power to destroy careers using standards that were never clearly defined beforehand?

——————————

SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS

The proceedings also raised serious concerns regarding fairness, transparency, and procedural integrity.

According to the record, concerns included:

• retroactive application of newly interpreted standards,
• inconsistent enforcement of unclear expectations,
• reimposition of substantially similar sanctions after due process concerns were identified by a court,
• incomplete appellate records,
• conflicts within investigative and advisory processes,
• and inconsistent adherence to investigative procedures and administrative requirements.

Investigators also admitted under oath that:

• significant exculpatory evidence remained unreviewed in investigative files for extended periods of time,
• important medical records and consent documentation were omitted from investigative summaries,
• and published investigative procedures and Administrative Process Act requirements were not consistently followed during portions of the disciplinary process.

These are not minor procedural issues.

They raise broader concerns about due process, impartiality, and accountability within administrative disciplinary systems.

——————————

IMAGINE FACING DISCIPLINE UNDER STANDARDS THAT WERE NEVER PUBLISHED

This case raises a broader concern:

If contemporaneous records, expert testimony, and findings of safety and competence are insufficient to protect a professional license, what safeguards actually remain for licensed professionals?

——————————

WHY THIS MATTERS TO PATIENTS

When unclear standards and inconsistent enforcement drive experienced clinicians out of practice, patients lose:

• access to experienced providers,
• continuity of care,
• informed healthcare choice,
• and the ability to continue treatment with trusted clinicians.

Pelvic health patients already face major provider shortages and long wait times for care.

Competent adults should retain the right to:

• participate in informed healthcare decisions,
• continue care with trusted providers,
• accept or decline the presence of a chaperone,
• and consent to lawful, evidence-based treatment.

Instead, this case resulted in mandatory restrictions patients themselves cannot decline despite no findings of patient harm.

That is not patient-centered care.

——————————

WHAT HAPPENS IF NOTHING CHANGES?
If undefined standards and retroactive enforcement continue unchecked:

• professionals will increasingly practice defensively,
• patients will lose access to experienced providers,
• fewer clinicians will enter high-risk specialties,
• and administrative agencies will continue operating with limited accountability.

When undefined standards become enforceable after the fact, compliance becomes impossible.

And when compliance becomes impossible, administrative power becomes effectively limitless.

——————————

THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THIS CASE PRESENTS

Can a licensing board declare a lawful medical recommendation as “inappropriate”  based solely on subjective interpretation:

• when the only qualified expert who testified, Dr. Holly Tanner, stated the care and recommendations were within the standard of practice,
• when contemporaneous medical records contradicted key allegations,
• when patients voluntarily sought and consented to treatment,
• and when the Board itself later concluded there were no violations and no patient harm?

If the answer is yes, then professional discipline is no longer anchored to clearly defined objective standards.

It becomes vulnerable to:

• shifting interpretations,
• selective enforcement,
• and subjective opinion applied after the fact.

That should concern every licensed professional governed by administrative agencies in Virginia.

Licensing boards possess extraordinary power over livelihoods, reputations, and patient access to care.

When discipline becomes disconnected from clearly published standards, evidence, and consistent application, no professional license is truly secure.

——————————

WHAT WE ARE ASKING VIRGINIA LEADERS TO DO

We respectfully ask Virginia lawmakers, courts, and regulatory agencies to:

1. REQUIRE clearly published professional standards before discipline may occur.
2. PREVENT retroactive reinterpretation of undefined standards.
3. ENSURE disciplinary findings remain tied to evidence and factual conclusions.
4. REQUIRE meaningful consideration of expert testimony, medical records, and patient outcomes.
5. CONDUCT independent reviews when severe restrictions remain despite findings of safety and competence.
6. PROTECT informed adult patients’ right to participate in healthcare decisions.
7. STRENGTHEN transparency and accountability within professional disciplinary systems.

——————————

A SYSTEM SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DECLARE A PROVIDER “SAFE AND COMPETENT” WHILE DESTROYING THEIR CAREER ANYWAY

A professional licensing system must remain anchored to clearly defined standards, objective evidence, and consistent application of the law.

When agencies can impose severe sanctions despite findings of safety, competence, and no patient harm, public trust in administrative oversight begins to erode.

This petition asks Virginia leaders to restore transparency, accountability, due process, and evidence-based regulation before more professionals and patients are harmed by inconsistent enforcement.

Please sign and share this petition to support:

• Due process
• Transparent healthcare regulation
• Patient autonomy
• Evidence-based oversight
• Protection against arbitrary licensing enforcement

Share it with:

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

Because when discipline becomes untethered from evidence, clearly defined standards, and factual findings, every licensed professional becomes vulnerable and every patient’s access to care becomes less secure.

Scott Roberts, PT, LMT

Virginia Licensed Physical Therapist & Massage Therapist