Here is an example of my sentence:
The physical therapy visit was not dated, did not contain the name or date of service, and therefore could not be validated.
Someone is trying to correct me and say that I need to put “it” before "did not contain the name or date of service". I don’t think that’s correct.
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston and Pullum 2002) states:
Coordination of finite VPs
One category that occurs freely with coordinators but not with prepositions is that of finite VP:4-- i-- She finished the report and went home.
[p. 1291. The portion in bold is underlined in the original text.]
The Original poster's example, like (4) above, has a single subject and a coordination of finite verb phrases (VPs). In the Original Poster's case the sentence has three VPs, and as is typically the case only has an overt coordinator, the word and, before the last coordinate:
The physical therapy visit [was not dated], [did not contain the name or date of service], and [could not be validated].
The Original Poster's examples is, therefore, perfectly grammatical.
Note, also, that the coordinates in a coordination must all have the same grammatical status. In the Original Poster's example they are all Predicate VPs. If we added the word it before the second coordinate, then the whole sentence would become ungrammatical. We would then have a coordination of two full finite clauses with a VP. The resulting lack of equivalence means that such a structure is ungrammatical. Of course, we could fix that either by splitting the example into two sentences, or by sticking a subject in before the third coordinate, which would make then make the three coordinates equivalent.
