They Charged an Impossible Act. The Court Called the Contradiction “No Evidence.”
The Virginia Board of Physical Therapy charged me with contacting Patient A’s vaginal opening through clothing.
The Court of Appeals of Virginia then affirmed that finding and wrote that, without contradictory evidence in the record, it would not disturb the Board’s facts.
THAT SENTENCE IS THE PROBLEM
There was contradictory evidence.
It was in the same record the Court said it reviewed.
Patient A’s own testimony, at hearing transcript pages 114–118, included this:
“It was on the top of my body.”
“He didn’t go between my legs.”
Those two sentences are not a side note. They are a complete geometric description of what she said happened.
THE OPENING IS NOT ON THE TOP OF THE BODY
The vaginal opening — the introitus — is not the pubic bone.
- It is not the mons.
- It is not the front of the pelvis.
It sits in the urogenital perineum, on the midline, several inches inferior and posterior to the pubic arch, recessed between the labia, between the proximal thighs.
THAT IS NOT A THEORY. THAT IS FEMALE ANATOMY.
A hand that stays on the anterior pelvis — palpating the pubic symphysis through sweatpants — is on bone and soft tissue over bone. That contact is roughly two to three inches superior to the introitus. Fabric over the mons does not create a tunnel under the pubic arch.
THE ONLY OPEN ROUTE IS BETWEEN THE LEGS
Governing rule:
The vaginal opening CANNOT be contacted by any mechanical path that does NOT enter the space between the proximal thighs.
That constraint holds standing or lying down, clothed or unclothed.
- Thigh abduction opens the corridor.
- Thigh adduction seals it.
If the hand NEVER entered the space between the legs, the hand NEVER reached the introitus.
Patient A said the contact was on the top of her body and that I did NOT go between her legs.
If the Board needed the vaginal opening to support Va. Code § 54.1-3483(10), it needed a path the same witness said DID NOT OCCUR.
Anatomy does NOT supply the missing path.
Deference does NOT either.
WHAT THE BOARD TREATED AS FACT — AND WHAT THE RECORD CONTAINED
Board / court version: contact with the vaginal opening through clothing.
What the same record also contained:
- Contact described as on the top of the body
- An explicit denial of any approach between the legs
- My account of pubic-bone / fascial-point work on the anterior pelvis
- The fixed three-dimensional layout of the pelvis, which does NOT allow those two regions to be collapsed into one spot
On top is NOT the introitus.
Not between the legs is NOT a route.
Bone is NOT the opening.
Clothing does NOT invent a second route.
Sweatpants spanning adducted thighs do NOT loop under the pubic arch.
WHAT THE COURT THEN DID
The Court of Appeals, in Scott J. Roberts, P.T. v. Virginia Board of Physical Therapy, Record No. 1325-24-2 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2026) (unpublished), treated the Board’s finding as supported by “substantial evidence” and stated it would not disturb agency findings “without contradictory evidence in the record.”
THAT IS HOW AN ANATOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE PATH BECAME "FACT."
- Not because the pelvis changed.
- Not because a second corridor appeared.
- Because the reviewing court treated the witness’s own location words — top of the body, not between the legs — as if they did not contradict a finding that required the opposite path.
If “substantial evidence” can IGNORE the only open route to the structure the statute required, then “substantial evidence” has stopped meaning evidence.
WHY THIS MATTERS BEYOND ONE CASE
Licensing boards already hold the power to end a career.
Appellate courts already apply heavy deference to those boards.
If that combination can convert anterior pubic-bone contact, plus a witness statement that the hand stayed on top of the body and did not go between the legs, into proven contact with the vaginal opening, then NO licensed professional is protected by anatomy, geometry, or the words actually spoken under oath.
DUE PROCESS IS NOT A PREFERENCE.
The three-dimensional layout of the pelvis is not a chaperone rule.
A finding that depends on a route the record said did not happen CANNOT be rescued by calling the contradiction “no evidence.”
WHAT I AM ASKING YOU TO DO
- Sign and share this petition.
- Send this update to anyone who still believes a licensing record is reviewed as a whole.
- Ask Virginia lawmakers and the Department of Health Professions one question:
How can an appellate court say there was no contradictory evidence when the complaining witness located the contact on the top of the body and denied the only anatomical route that could have reached the opening the Board charged?
ON TOP IS NOT THE INTROITUS.
NOT BETWEEN THE LEGS IS NOT A ROUTE.
BONE IS NOT THE OPENING.
DEFERENCE IS NOT ANATOMY.
Government must follow the law when it enforces the law.
And a court must follow the record when it reviews the law.
Please keep sharing.
#RestorePTJustice
Scott Roberts, PT, LMT
Henrico, Virginia