Case Name: Virginia Physical Therapy Association, et al. v. Virginia Board of Medicine
Court: Supreme Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1993-02-26
Citations: 245 Va. 125
Docket Number: Record No. 920097
Parties: Virginia Physical Therapy Association, et al. v. Virginia Board of Medicine
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 245
Pages: 125–126

Head Matter:
Virginia Physical Therapy Association, et al. v. Virginia Board of Medicine
Record No. 920097
February 26, 1993
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Whiting, Lacy, and Hassell, LL, and Poff, Senior Justice
Gregory M. Luce (James E. Anklam; Dwayne O. Leslie; Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, on briefs), for appellants.
Lynne R. Fleming, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General; Jessica S. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Howard M. Casway, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Opinion:
CHIEF JUSTICE CARRICO
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Acting upon a bill of complaint for declaratory judgment filed by the Virginia Physical Therapy Association and Martin Boytek, Jr. (the complainants), the trial court permanently enjoined the Virginia Board of Medicine (the Board) from enforcing any rule against the performance of electromyographic examinations by physical therapists. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because the action taken by the Board did not amount to a case decision or the promulgation of a rule within the meaning of the Virginia Administrative Process Act, the Board's action was not appealable or subject to judicial review and, therefore, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case without prejudice to the complainants to bring another action should the Board reach a case decision adverse to Boytek. Virginia Bd. of Medicine v. VPTA, 13 Va. App. 458, 413 S.E.2d 59 (1991).
We awarded the complainants an appeal to consider the question whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We have considered this question and, for the reasons assigned by the Court of Appeals in its opinion, we will affirm its judgment.
Affirmed.