Physical Therapy Board Hears Petition from James Kyung Cho to End Probation Early

Sacramento — The Physical Therapy Board of California heard a petition June 25 asking that licensee James Kyung Cho be granted early termination of a five‑year probation imposed after a stipulation to disciplinary allegations.

The hearing took place before Administrative Law Judge Patrice de Guzman Huber of the Office of Administrative Hearings and a quorum of board members in the Department of Consumer Affairs hearing room. The attorney representing the state urged the board to deny the petition, while the petitioner’s attorney asked the board to end probation now on rehabilitative grounds. After receiving evidence and testimony the board closed the record and went into closed session to deliberate; no decision was announced on the record.

The petition concerns allegations that Cho provided unnecessary or excessive physical therapy to nine elderly patients in a skilled nursing facility and that he failed to properly supervise an assistant who was not licensed. The attorney general’s office described the conduct as serious and asked the board to “finish what we started” and require the petitioner to serve the full five‑year term of probation. As the attorney general said in opening: “We ask that in light of these egregious circumstances that the petitioner who has only served 2 and a half years probation so far be denied his request for relief from probation and that the full term be extended.”

Why it matters: The case raises questions about provider supervision, documentation and billing in skilled nursing settings and the board’s role in protecting vulnerable patients in long‑term care. The board’s decision will determine whether Cho’s probation ends early or continues to its full term.

What happened at the hearing

Evidence and exhibits: The attorney general’s office introduced a series of exhibits, including the notice of hearing, the original petition and the certified copy of the petitioner’s probation report. The petitioner’s counsel offered multiple letters of reference and a brief that were admitted as defense exhibits.

Allegations summarized: Deputy Attorney General James Walter told the board that Cho had stipulated to allegations that included overtreating nine separate patients (described in the record as senior citizens in a skilled nursing facility), aiding and abetting an unlicensed assistant, and failing to keep adequate records. Walter said investigators found repeated treatments billed after patients had reached maximum improvement, and that an assistant had represented himself as a licensed PTA and provided care while Cho was not on site.

Petitioner’s case: Nick Webb, counsel for Cho, and Cho himself testified. Webb stressed Cho’s lengthy career in physical therapy and said Cho has met the conditions of probation, completed continuing education, and had letters of support from supervising clinicians. Cho testified that he “takes full responsibility” for the supervisory lapses, described how he had hired and later terminated the assistant after learning there was an issue with the assistant’s licensure, and asked the board for early termination so he can return to full autonomy in practice.

Board questioning and issues raised: Board members and counsel questioned Cho about supervision practices at the skilled nursing facility, how often a supervising physical therapist physically saw and reassessed patients, the timing of his discovery that the assistant lacked a license, and whether Cho or his facility reported the assistant’s status to Medicare or the board. Cho acknowledged he learned the assistant lacked a license months after the assistant began treating patients and that he did not self‑report the billing situation prior to the investigation.

Closing arguments and next steps: In closing the attorney for the state urged the board to require completion of the full five‑year probation, saying the offenses “took advantage of very vulnerable people.” Cho’s counsel asserted his client has complied with probation and been rehabilitated. After closing arguments the administrative law judge declared the record closed and the board recessed into closed session to deliberate; the judge told the petitioner he would not receive a decision that day.

Clarifying details from the record

• Number of patients named in the accusation: nine.

• Allegation that an assistant provided care without a valid PTA license: the record includes dates and investigators’ findings that the assistant treated patients on more than 320 occasions while not licensed, according to questioning during the hearing.

• Stipulated penalty and status: Cho entered a stipulated settlement that imposed a five‑year period of probation; Cho told the board he has served about 2½ years of that probation and that a remaining restriction on patient notification persisted (the transcript records a probation end date given as “September 27,” without a year specified on the transcript).

• Funding/payor noted in questioning: Medicare was identified as the payer for many of the patients at the nursing facility; the attorney general asked whether Medicare had been notified when billing occurred.

Speakers (excerpted and identified from the hearing record)

• Patrice de Guzman Huber — Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Hearings (presiding).

• James Walter — Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General (representing the State).

• Nick Webb — Attorney for petitioner (private counsel).

• James Kyung Cho — Petitioner; licensed physical therapist and subject of the probation petition.

• Karen Brandon — President, Physical Therapy Board of California (board presiding officer at meeting).

• Dale Armstrong — Board member, Physical Therapy Board of California.

• Samuel “Sam” Quell — Board member, Physical Therapy Board of California.

• Tala (Tala) Khalaf — Board member, Physical Therapy Board of California.

• Other board members and staff participated in questioning and procedural matters; letters and references from Michelle Bonifacio and Andrew Lee were admitted as exhibits for the petitioner.

Authorities and legal references recorded in the hearing

• Physical Therapy Practice Act — referenced in opening statements about the board’s role and the regulatory framework.

• Cited case law (reported in oral argument): counsel referenced precedent in briefing and argument (transcript cites a case name used by opposing counsel).

Action recorded

• Action type: adjudicative proceeding — petition for reduction of penalty (petition to terminate or reduce probation).

• Outcome at close of hearing: record closed; board convened in closed session for deliberation and no final decision announced on June 25 (board to issue decision at a later date). Notes: the transcript records that the matter was “submitted” and the board would deliberate in closed session and that the petitioner would be informed later.

Community relevance

The case touches on public‑protection issues in skilled nursing facilities and billing practices affecting elderly Medicare beneficiaries. The board’s decision will affect a licensee’s ability to practice without probationary conditions and may influence how the board enforces supervision and documentation requirements for physical therapists who contract with or supervise assistants in nursing homes.

Provenance (selected evidence from the hearing record)

• topicintro: “Alright. Alright. We are on the record before the Physical Therapy Board of California Department of Consumer Affairs. In the matter of the petition for reduction of penalty of James Kyung Cho, The agency case number is 7202018001754, and the OAH case number is 2025050117. Today is 06/25/2025.” (Transcript excerpt from hearing opening.)

• topfinish: “With the matter being submitted, the record is closed, and the board will convene in closed session to deliberate, and determine what its final decision will be in this matter. So, mister Cho, you won't be getting your decision today.” (Transcript excerpt where administrative law judge closes the record and announces deliberation schedule.)

Ending

The board did not issue a decision at the June 25 session; the record was closed and the board moved to closed session to deliberate. The board will notify parties of its decision in accordance with the board’s procedures once deliberations conclude.