Appeal of R.L., on behalf of her child, from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding immunization.

Decision No. 18,635

(September 11, 2025)

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondent, Belina Anderson, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the New York City Department of Education (“NYCDOE” or “respondent”) that her child (“the student”) is not entitled to a medical exemption from the immunization requirements of Public Health Law (“PHL”) § 2164.  The appeal must be dismissed.

The student attended school in respondent’s district prior to the events described herein.  On February 13, 2025, petitioner sought medical exemptions for several required immunizations on the student’s behalf.[1]  Petitioner submitted a medical exemption form completed by the student’s current physician, who asserted that the student “ha[d] multiple allergic reactions to multiple vaccinations in childhood.”  The current physician further indicated that the student had been previously “deemed exempt” by his former physician.

A physician employed by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Health (“DOHMH”) contacted the current physician to obtain additional information.  The current physician indicated that he completed the form solely based upon the recommendation of the student’s former physician.  He characterized the student as a “new patient” and offered no further clinical information.  The DOHMH physician then spoke with the former physician, who opined that there was no basis to grant the student a medical exemption.

By letter dated March 24, 2024, respondent determined that the student was not entitled to a medical exemption.[2]  Respondent reiterated this determination by letter dated May 20, 2025.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner contends that the student is entitled to an exemption from the immunization requirements of PHL § 2164 based on a history of “extremely severe allergies.” Petitioner further asserts that the student “experienced an anaphylactic reaction which almost led to his death” when administered an unidentified immunization.  Petitioner seeks “reconsider[ation]” of respondent’s denial of her exemption request.

Respondent contends that its determination was made in conformity with PHL § 2164 and its implementing regulations.

First, I must address a preliminary matter.  With the petition, petitioner submits a substantially similar medical exemption request from the current physician dated June 12, 2025.  This request post-dates the instant appeal.  Review of this request is premature iuntil respondent renders an adverse decision thereon (Appeal of P.C., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,417).

Turning to the merits, PHL § 2164 generally requires that children between the ages of two months and eighteen years be immunized against certain diseases and provides that children may not attend school in the absence of acceptable evidence that they have been immunized.  The law provides a single exception to the immunization requirement:  immunization is not required if a New York-licensed physician certifies that immunization may be detrimental to a child's health (PHL § 2164 [8]).  Pursuant to applicable DOH regulations,

A principal or person in charge of a school shall not admit a child to school unless a person in parental relation to the child has furnished the school with … [a] signed, completed medical exemption form … from a physician licensed to practice medicine in New York State certifying that immunization may be detrimental to the child's health, containing sufficient information to identify a medical contraindication to a specific immunization and specifying the length of time the immunization is medically contraindicated.  The medical exemption must be reissued annually. The principal or person in charge of the school may require additional information supporting the exemption.

(10 NYCRR 66-1.3 [c]).  The phrase “[m]ay be detrimental to the child’s health” means “that a physician has determined that a child has a medical contraindication or precaution to a specific immunization consistent with ACIP[3] guidance or other nationally recognized evidence-based standard of care” (10 NYCRR 66-1.1 [l]).

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).

The documents petitioner submits on appeal—which consist of allergy testing results (reflecting peanut and tree nut allergies) and blood work[4]—do not identify a contraindication or precaution to any required vaccination.  Additionally, neither the student’s current nor former physician opined that a medical exemption was warranted at this time.  Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed (see Appeal of R.Z., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,472; Appeal of M.H., 63 id., Decision No. 18,374; Appeal of V.T., 60 id., Decision No. 17,979).

While the appeal must be dismissed, petitioner remains free to submit any evidence to support her claim that the student experienced “an anaphylactic reaction [that] almost led to his death” to respondent for its consideration.

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE