THE RECORD CONTRADICTS THE FINDINGS. THE COURT CALLED THAT "NO CONTRADICTION"

They officially found I was safe to practice.

They found no patient harm.

Then they kept career-altering restrictions anyway.

That is why this petition exists.

Here is what supporters need to know next.

The Virginia Court of Appeals said the Board’s core findings stood “without contradictory evidence.”

THAT SENTENCE IS THE PROBLEM.

Patient A did NOT say “he touched my vaginal opening and I considered it sexual.”

• She said the contact was on the top of my body.
• She said he didn’t go between my legs.
• She said it was next to the pubic bone.
• She said she was in sweatpants.
• She said she didn’t consider it sexual.
• She said she had consented to dry needling, understood clothing had to move, and was not objecting to the waistband being lowered. That part was not her complaint.
• She NEVER received pelvic-floor therapy from me.

THOSE ARE NOT SMALL DIFFERENCES

The vaginal opening is not on the front of the pubic bone.

It sits lower, in the perineum, between the thighs.

If the hand stays on the pubic bone and never goes between the legs, it is anatomically impossible to touch the vaginal opening. Clothing does not create a tunnel under the pubic arch.

A finding that converts “on top / not between the legs / pubic bone” into “vaginal opening through clothing” is not a credibility call.

IT IS A REWRITE.

Patient B was asked, under oath:

“Pelvic floor therapy was never a part of your treatment at Roberts Physical Therapy, was it?”

She answered: “No, it was not.”

Her referring provider did not authorize it. The clinic did not perform it.

The same appellate opinion that talks about unauthorized pelvic-floor therapy later quotes the chart: “never received pelvic floor treatment.”

A recommendation she declined is NOT a sexual act.

A treatment that NEVER happened CANNOT be the treatment that happened.

Patient C received internal pelvic-floor therapy for years.

She gave verbal consent.

She said that when she asked me to stop a technique, I stopped immediately.

She said that otherwise the care was “absolutely” good.

She NEVER filed a complaint.

She did NOT even know a former employee had taken her file to the Board.

She kept coming back.

The Board treated a missing extra written form (which was NOT and still is NOT a requirement) as missing consent — after the Commonwealth asking the Board, for the first time, to decide that pelvic-floor therapy was an “invasive procedure.”

A circuit court later said no regulation classified it that way.

Missing paper is not missing yes.

Now ask the question the system will not ask.

If that interpretation was really the rule, who else was breaking it?

Pelvic-floor examination and treatment have been taught in recognized courses, universities, and clinics across this profession.

Students are allowed to perform it.

There is NO separate Virginia certificate to do internal pelvic-floor therapy — a sitting Board member had to be told that at the hearing.

You CANNOT declare conduct so unacceptable it helps take one therapist out of practice, while materially similar practice is openly taught, and then pretend those two facts are unrelated.

Either it was the governing standard for everyone —
or it was a standard discovered when the government needed it against one person.

Rules that exist for everyone are written, published, and applied evenly.

They are not announced in a prosecution and then locked behind the word deference.

Deference is supposed to mean: the court was not in the clinic, so it will be careful with people who were.

Here it meant: the court was not in the clinic, and it would not notice:

• that the Board changed the words,
• skipped statutory elements, and
• still got called “the experts” for sitting in the chairs.

Appointment fills a chair.

• It does not download a specialty into someone’s head.
• It does not turn “felt like” into a structure.
• It does not turn “I said no” into treatment performed.
• It does not turn verbal consent into no consent.

If this can be done to one licensee after 20 years, 110,000 treatments, and no prior discipline, for simply recommending a valid treatment option, it can be done in any licensed profession the next time a board decides yesterday’s accepted practice means something different today.

What we are still asking

• Write the rule before you enforce it.
• Review the whole record, including the sworn sentences that contradict the caption.
• Do not manufacture a professional standard through one prosecution.
• Do not keep indefinite control and national reporting after the same Board has already said the clinician is safe and caused no patient harm.

If you have already signed: please share this update.

If you have not: sign, then send it to one person whose license depends on a written rule.

A rule that supposedly existed for everyone cannot be discovered only when it is needed against someone.

#RestorePTJustice