COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Frank, Huff and Senior Judge Haley 

DR. YVOUNE KARA PETRIE, D.C. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1986-13-4 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 8, 2014 

VIRGINIA BOARD OF MEDICINE 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

David S. Schell, Judge 

 (Vincent M. Amberly; Amberly Law, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General; Ronald C. Forehand, Deputy 

Attorney General; Allyson K. Tysinger, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General; Ishneila G. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Dr. Yvoune Kara Petrie, D.C. appeals the decision by the circuit court upholding a decision 

by the Virginia Board of Medicine (the Board) finding that Dr. Petrie violated certain laws 

governing the practice of chiropractic. The circuit court also upheld the Board’s decisions to 

suspend Dr. Petrie’s license to practice chiropractic for six months and to impose a monetary 

penalty. On appeal, Dr. Petrie argues that (1) the Board failed to provide her with meaningful notice 

at a meaningful time and failed to notify her of the possible severity of the consequences, thus 

preventing her from presenting evidence of the standard for the practice of chiropractic and ethical 

standards; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s findings and conclusions; 

(3) the Board was improperly constituted, having no doctors of chiropractic; (4) the Board exceeded 

its authority in denying appellant the ability to practice her profession; (5) the Board erred in not 

presenting expert witnesses or other evidence to support its determination of the scope of 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

UNPUBLISHED 
 - 2 - 

chiropractic practice; and (6) the Board erred in excluding documentary evidence and expertise 

sought to be introduced by appellant. 

 The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to 

the Board. Goad v. Virginia Bd. of Med., 40 Va. App. 621, 623 n.3, 580 S.E.2d 494, 495 n.3 

(2003); Rule 5A:18. “‘Rule 5A:18 applies to bar even constitutional claims.’” Tackett v. Arlington 

Cnty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 62 Va. App. 296, 315, 746 S.E.2d 509, 519 (2013) (quoting Ohree v. 

Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998)). 

 Dr. Petrie failed to argue to the Board that her due process rights were violated when it 

failed to provide her with meaningful notice at a meaningful time and a fair opportunity to be heard1

nor to the composition of the Board. She did not object to the Board proceeding without any expert 

nor did she request the presence of an expert on her behalf. Neither did she object to the Board’s 

exclusion of certain evidence. These issues were first raised in her notice of appeal of April 1, 2013. 

Having failed to present those arguments before the Board, she is precluded from raising them on 

appeal. 

 As to the remaining assignment of error, i.e. the sufficiency of the evidence, Dr. Petrie 

argues the Board’s decision failed to meet the substantial evidence test that she falsely advertised, 

that she held herself out as a dietician or nutritionist, and that she permitted individuals under her 

supervision to engage in the unlicensed practice of medicine. Upon reviewing the record and the 

briefs of the parties, we conclude that this remaining assignment of error is without merit. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board in its final order, see In re: Yvoune Kara 

Petrie, D.C., License No. 0104-556481 (Feb. 28, 2013), as affirmed by the circuit court, see Petrie v. 

Virginia Bd. of Med., Case No. CL2013-7931 (Sept. 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argument 

 1

 Dr. Petrie cites her notice of appeal to the circuit court as to where she preserved the 

arguments. Dr. Petrie failed to provide a reference in the record where she presented the 

arguments to the Board. 
 - 3 - 

and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.