How can a licensing board find someone “safe and competent” and still destroy their livelihood?

——————————

WHAT HAPPENED

After more than 20 years in practice without a single finding of patient harm, I lost my career under standards that were never clearly defined.

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 and livelihood were effectively destroyed after I recommended pelvic floor therapy, a recognized area of physical therapy practice.

The accusations against me relied on:

• Undefined standards
• Retroactive interpretations
• Allegations contradicted by contemporaneous medical records and sworn testimony
• Claims disputed by expert testimony

——————————

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

——————————

WHY PEOPLE ARE SUPPORTING THIS PETITION
People across political and professional backgrounds are supporting this petition because they believe:

• due process matters,
• government power must have limits,
• professional discipline should remain tied to evidence,
• and no citizen should lose their livelihood under undefined 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 THIS SHOULD TERRIFY EVERY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
If a licensing board can:

• reinterpret standards years after treatment occurred,
• apply undefined expectations retroactively,
• ignore expert testimony,
• disregard contemporaneous documentation,
• and still impose career-ending 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

No citizen should lose their livelihood over standards that were never clearly defined at the time the treatment occurred.

——————————

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

BOARD FINDINGS
“Safe and competent”

FINAL OUTCOME
Multi-year suspension and severe restrictions

——————————

WHAT THE RECORD SHOWED

• 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
• Undefined standards were applied 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?

——————————

IMAGINE THIS HAPPENING TO YOU
Imagine being told:

• you violated rules that did not clearly exist at the time,
• your documentation and evidence did not matter,
• expert witnesses supporting you could be ignored,
• and even after findings that you were “safe and competent,” your career could still be destroyed.

That is not how due process is supposed to work in America.

——————————

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 ignore evidence can target anyone.

——————————

SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS

According to the proceedings and official record, this case raises serious concerns regarding the fairness, transparency, and integrity of the disciplinary process itself.

The record reflects allegations that:

• newly interpreted standards were applied retroactively to care provided years earlier,
• requirements and restrictions were imposed that had never been clearly published or consistently applied to other therapists in Virginia,
• substantially identical sanctions were reimposed after a court identified due process violations
• constitutional concerns were minimized as “minor technicalities,”
• the complete formal hearing transcript and exhibits were not included in the official appellate record,
• individuals involved in bringing charges were permitted to participate in deliberative or advisory processes,
• restrictive conditions were imposed without proper open-session votes reflected in the record,
• and the Board failed to respond to ongoing litigation filed in 2026, resulting in default proceedings.

Investigators also admitted under oath that:

• exculpatory evidence in their files for 8-19 months remained unreviewed,  
• important medical records and consent documentation were omitted from investigative summaries,
• and published investigative procedures and Administrative Process Act requirements were not consistently followed.

These are not minor procedural irregularities.

They raise fundamental concerns about due process, transparency, impartiality, and the integrity of administrative disciplinary proceedings.

——————————

THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THIS CASE PRESENTS

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

• when expert testimony does not support that conclusion,
• when the only qualified expert who testified (Dr. Holly Tanner) validated the care was within the standard of practice,
• when the medical records contradict the 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 tied to objective standards.

• It becomes tied to shifting interpretations, selective enforcement, and subjective opinion.

That should concern every licensed professional in Virginia.

——————————

WHY THIS MATTERS TO PATIENTS

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

Patients lose:

• access to experienced clinicians,
• continuity of care,
• the ability to make informed healthcare decisions for themselves,
• and the right to continue treatment with trusted providers.

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 a trusted provider,
• accept or decline the presence of a chaperone, 
• consent to lawful evidence-based treatment.

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

That is not patient-centered care.

That is administrative control replacing patient autonomy.

——————————

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.

——————————

QUESTIONS ABOUT REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY

According to the record, the Board:

• disregarded unrebutted expert testimony, including testimony from Dr. Holly Tanner, the only qualified pelvic health specialist to testify,
• minimized contemporaneous medical records and sworn testimony,
• overlooked positive patient outcomes,
• discounted evidence-based research, 
• and imposed severe discipline despite later findings of “no harm” and “no proven violations.”

That should concern every licensed professional and every patient who depends upon fair, evidence-based oversight.

——————————

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.

If this can happen to one healthcare professional, it can happen to others.

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