Appeal of G.D., on behalf of his child, from action of the Board of Education of the Smithtown Central School District regarding immunization.

Decision No. 18,556

(April 8, 2025)

Ingerman Smith LLP, attorneys for respondent, Steven A. Goodstadt, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the decision of the Board of Education of the Smithtown Central School District (“respondent” or “Smithtown”) excluding his child (the “student”) from school for failure to meet the immunization requirements of Public Health Law (“PHL”) § 2164.  The appeal must be dismissed. 

On August 2, 2024, the New York State Department of Health (DOH) informed numerous school districts that nurse practitioner Julie DeVuono, doing business as Wild Child Pediatrics, “created thousands of fraudulent pediatric vaccine records.”  DOH informed these districts, including respondent, that it would notify them separately “if NYSDOH ... identified particular students ... whose Wild Child/Julie DeVuono vaccination records [we]re known to be fraudulent.”

On September 9, 2024, a DOH employee informed respondent of several children in its district for whom “[s]ome or all of their vaccination records from Wild Child Pediatrics” were determined to be fraudulent.  As a result, DOH “invalidated” the fraudulent entries and “removed [them] from” the New York State Immunization Information System (NYSIIS).[1]

On September 10, 2024, respondent informed petitioner that, according to NYSIIS records, the student had not received multiple immunizations.  Respondent further stated that if petitioner could not produce evidence that the student had received or was in the process[2] of receiving these vaccinations by September 19, 2024, he would be excluded from school.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on October 21, 2024.[3]

Petitioner claims that he personally observed the student receive the vaccinations that were removed from the NYSIIS database.  He further argues that respondent unreasonably accepted DOH’s position without conducting its own investigation.  He contends that the student’s records should not have been deleted from NYSIIS and that he should be permitted to attend school.

Respondent argues that it reasonably complied with the directives of DOH and observed the required procedures in PHL § 2164 prior to the student’s exclusion.

The appeal must be dismissed, in large part, for lack of jurisdiction (8 NYCRR 276.9).  DOH, not respondent, determined that the student’s immunizations were fraudulent and removed them from NYSIIS.  Although respondent excluded petitioner’s child from its schools, it merely took the procedural steps necessary to effectuate DOH’s directive.[4]  There is no statute granting the Commissioner authority to review actions of DOH (Appeal of Grossenbacher, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,657).  While the language of Education Law § 310 (7) “could literally, and if it stood alone, embrace much more than the common school classifications of the first six subdivisions, the words ... do not stand alone, and ... are circumscribed and modified by the contextual words which precede and follow them” (Matter of Bowen v Allen, 17 AD2d 12, 14 [3d Dept 1962], affd 13 NY2d 663 [1963]; see also Matter of Verber v Sobol, 169 AD2d 1012 [3d Dept 1991]).  Therefore, any claim that DOH improperly invalidated the student’s immunizations cannot be entertained in this forum. 

Petitioner’s suggestion that respondent should have independently examined the student’s circumstances is without merit.  Respondent had no discretion to disregard a directive from DOH, the State agency with jurisdiction over public health (Public Health Law §§ 201, 206, 613; see generally Garcia v New York City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 31 NY3d 601, 618-19 [2018]).

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE