If a Licensing Board Can Ignore Its Own Findings, No Professional Is Truly Protected

——————————

WHAT HAPPENED

Imagine spending decades building a career, helping thousands of patients, maintaining a clean record, documenting informed consent, following accepted professional education, and believing that evidence and due process still matter.

Then imagine a licensing board concluding:

• No patient harm occurred
• No violations were found
• You were “safe and competent” to practice

…yet still keeping severe, career-damaging restrictions in place anyway.

That is exactly what happened in my case before the Virginia Board of Physical Therapy.

My name is Scott Roberts. I practiced as a licensed Virginia physical therapist and massage therapist for 20 years, with over 110,000 patient visits, and no prior complaints or disciplinary history.  

Before these proceedings, I had: 

• No prior disciplinary history.
• No findings of patient harm.
• Documented informed consent.
• Positive patient outcomes.
• Longstanding physician referral.
• More than 300 patient statements supporting my care.
• Unrebutted expert testimony by Dr. Holly Tanner supporting my competence.

Yet I was severely suspended over:

• A treatment for which I never received a single complaint from any patient,
• Nonexistent or undefined regulations that were never clearly published or consistently applied,
• Accusations that were anatomically and physically impossible and unequivocally contradicted by the medical record and documentation,
• Standards applied retroactively solely to me regarding care provided years earlier,
• And a longstanding patient relationship spanning nearly a decade—with that patient (and every other patient who actually received the care) never filing any complaint.

Even more concerning: The Virginia Board of Physical Therapy created a brand-new regulation during my formal hearing on March 9, 2022, declaring for the first time that pelvic floor physical therapy involving digital penetration was an “invasive procedure.”

• They then applied this newly invented standard retroactively (ex post facto) back to treatments I provided as early as 2015 — to me alone, and to no other licensed physical therapist in Virginia.
• This was done without a single expert witness on the standard of care.

The Virginia Department of Health Professions (VDHP) investigators admitted under oath that they:

• Ignored the plethora of exculpatory evidence in their own files for 8–19 months,
• Failed to include key medical records and consent documentation in their Summary of Investigations,
• Did not follow their own published guidelines or the Virginia Administrative Process Act.

Even after the Henrico Circuit Court ruled in March 2023 that no regulation existed classifying pelvic floor physical therapy as an “invasive procedure” and overturned that central finding, the Board held an improper “Special Meeting” and issued an “Amended Order” that reimposed the exact same severe indefinite suspension.

• They dismissed the Court’s due process ruling as a “minor technicality” and "novel legal arguement" while continuing to sanction me for the pelvic floor modality anyway.
• Notably, one of the patients (Patient C) never filed any complaint and was compelled to testify.

The Board’s own Adjudication Consultant also made statements at the June 2023 Special Meeting that were directly contradicted by the actual hearing testimony and records — including falsely claiming patients testified I “insisted” they receive pelvic floor therapy, when no patient ever said that.

• The Board further refused to include the full March 2022 formal hearing transcript and exhibits in the official appeal record, relying instead on incomplete “reference materials.”

This case presents an issue of first impression:

• whether pelvic floor therapy — a legally authorized and medically recognized treatment — can be labeled “conduct of a sexual nature” based solely on a recommendation and subjective patient perceptions and the location of treatment, without any expert testimony that the techniques fell outside accepted professional standards.
• Patient A herself testified that the conduct was not sexual.
• Patient C never complained.
• Patient B received no inappropriate treatment — she simply did not want pelvic floor therapy recommended.

I have now petitioned the Supreme Court of Virginia for review.

• I argue that more than a patient’s later subjective discomfort should be required before labeling a lawful recommendation for medically recognized treatment as unprofessional or “sexual”
• Particularly when no expert testimony supports that conclusion, and the only expert who testified on the standard of care, Dr. Holly Tanner, confirmed that the recommendations and treatment were within the prevailing standard of care.

Even after the Board finally reinstated my license in December 2025 — finding me “safe and competent to resume practice” — it imposed new restrictive conditions, including chaperone requirements and probation terms that were never voted on by the Board.

• The Executive Director, who had brought new charges against me just months earlier, was permitted to participate in the Board’s closed deliberations.
• I have now filed a new appeal in Henrico Circuit Court (Case No. CL 26-1194).
• As of May 2026, the Board has failed to file any response and is in default.

No patient harm occurred. 

No violations were found under the standards that actually existed at the time.

Patients voluntarily sought, consented to, and benefited from the care.

Yet I remained suspended for more than four years under standards that were never clearly defined or consistently applied.

The Virginia Board of Physical Therapy still imposed:

• A SUSPENSION EXCEEDING FOUR YEARS 
• INDEFINITE PROBATION
• PERMANENT PRACTICE RESTRICTIONS 
• NATIONAL REPORTING AFFECTING MY PROFESSIONAL FUTURE 

Then — after years of proceedings— the Board itself ultimately acknowledged:

✅SAFE AND COMPETENT

✅NO VIOLATIONS FOUND

✅NO PATIENT HARM FOUND

✅DOCUMENTED INFORMED CONSENT 

✅POSITIVE OUTCOMES

✅UNREBUTTED EXPERT SUPPORT

SAME RECORD.
SAME FACTS.
DIFFERENT OUTCOME.

Even after acknowledging safety, competence, and no patient harm, the Board still maintained severe restrictions.

——————————

WHY THIS SHOULD CONCERN EVERY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL

This petition is not simply about one provider or one profession.

It is about whether any licensed professional can safely practice when:

• Standards are unclear.
• Rules are reinterpreted after the fact.
• Discipline becomes disconnected from factual findings.
• Accusations that defy basic anatomy and are directly refuted by contemporaneous records.
• Career-ending restrictions remain despite findings of safety and competence.
• A licensing board that can invent a new regulation during a hearing, apply it retroactively to only one practitioner, and ignore its own investigators’ admissions of omitted evidence.

Because if this can happen under undefined standards, it can happen to anyone governed by a professional licensing board.

This case raises serious concerns about the exercise of administrative power without clearly established standards.

Patients voluntarily sought and consented to the treatment at issue.

• They benefited from care.
• They wished to continue treatment.
• Competent adults gave informed consent.

Not one single patient who received the treatment filed a complaint. 

Yet severe restrictions remained, including mandatory chaperone conditions patients themselves cannot decline.

At the center of this issue is a troubling reality:

• No clearly published regulation defined the treatment standard at issue
• No clear definition existed for what constituted “pelvic floor therapy”
• No clearly established chaperone standard existed
• No consistently applied framework governed the discipline imposed

This creates a dangerous situation for every licensed professional:

• How can professionals comply with standards that were never clearly defined in the first place?

Additional concerns also arose regarding inconsistent jurisdictional treatment, conflicting professional standards across agencies, and the handling of medical documentation during the proceedings.

For example:

• Treatment provided within a physical therapy context was later evaluated under a separate professional framework with different scope limitations and standards, creating significant questions regarding jurisdiction, consistency of review, and application of professional standards across agencies.

These issues further highlight the need for clearly defined regulations, transparent procedures, and consistent evidentiary review in professional disciplinary actions.

——————————

WHY THIS SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

This case is not isolated.

It sets a precedent relevant to anyone holding a professional license — physical therapists, physicians, nurses, dentists, occupational therapists, chiropractors, pharmacists, massage therapists, you name it.

If unelected, politically appointed government agencies can:

• Reinterpret standards after the fact
• Disregard clear evidence
• Discount expert testimony
• Acknowledge no patient harm occurred
• Acknowledge safety and competence

…and still impose severe, career-altering discipline, then every licensed professional becomes vulnerable to inconsistent enforcement.

Clinical judgment, professional reputation, patient relationships, and livelihoods all depend upon predictable and consistently applied standards.

——————————

WHY THIS MATTERS TO PATIENTS

Patients lose when experienced providers are removed from practice despite findings of safety and competence.

Patients lose: 

• Access to experienced clinicians
• Continuity of care
• The ability to make informed healthcare decisions for themselves

Every competent adult should retain the right to participate in informed healthcare decisions, including:

• Whether to continue care with a trusted provider
• Whether to accept or decline the presence of a chaperone 
• The right and dignity as a competent adult to give informed consent regarding their own care
• Care guided by evidence and the standard of practice  

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

When unclear standards and inconsistent enforcement drive experienced clinicians out of practice, patients are left with fewer choices and reduced access to care.

—————————— 

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ELIMINATING PROFESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Effective oversight protects patients and ethical professionals alike.

Professional standards matter.

Accountability matters.

But oversight loses legitimacy when discipline becomes disconnected from evidence, transparency, and consistently applied standards.

This petition asks a simple question:

• Can a government licensing board impose severe, career-altering discipline under standards that were never clearly established, even after concluding there were no violations, no patient harm, and that the provider was safe and competent?

If the answer is yes, then licensed professionals cannot reliably know what standards actually govern their practice.

Justice requires:

• Evidence over assumption
• Consistency over selective enforcement
• Transparency over retroactive reinterpretation
• Accountability grounded in factual findings

Because once evidence no longer constrains administrative power, the predictability and fairness professionals rely upon begin to disappear.

——————————

THE VIRGINIA BOARDS AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS PROVED THEY CAN: 

• Ignore unrebutted expert testimony (including Dr. Holly Tanner, the only qualified pelvic specialist)
• Ignore medical records and sworn testimony
• Ignore positive patient outcomes
• Ignore evidence-based research 
• Ignore their own “no harm, no violation” findings
• And still impose severe career-altering discipline

That should concern every licensed professional and every patient who depends upon one.

——————————

WE ASK VIRGINIA LEADERS TO ACT

We are asking Virginia lawmakers 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.

If a licensing board can find a provider safe and competent, find no violations and no patient harm, yet still impose severe restrictions under undefined standards, then no licensed professional is truly secure and no patient’s choice is truly protected.

——————————

TAKE ACTION  

Please sign and share this petition to support:

• Fairness
• Transparency
• Evidence-based oversight
• Patient choice
• Accountability grounded in objective evidence

Share it with healthcare professionals, patients, advocates, and lawmakers.

When discipline becomes untethered from clearly defined standards and factual findings, licensed professionals become vulnerable and patient access to care becomes less secure.

Scott Roberts, PT, LMT

Virginia Licensed Physical Therapist & Massage Therapist