Appeal of M.M. and L.M., on behalf of their child, from action of the Board of Education of the Clarence Central School District regarding immunization.

Decision No. 18,641

(October 15, 2025)

Webster Szanyi LLP, attorneys for respondent, Marnie E. Smith, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioners appeal the determination of the Board of Education of the Clarence Central School District (“respondent”) that their 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 respondent’s district at the time of the events described herein.  Prior to the start of the 2024-2025 school year, respondent notified petitioners that the student lacked current vaccinations for varicella and polio.  On October 21, 2024, petitioners submitted a New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) medical exemption statement to respondent seeking a medical exemption from the varicella vaccination.  Respondent denied this request.  On November 24, 2024, petitioners submitted a second medical exemption request from the varicella vaccination, which respondent again denied.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioners’ request for interim relief was denied on December 6, 2024.

Petitioners argue that the student is entitled to a medical exemption from the second dose of the varicella vaccine.  They further contend that the student was not required to obtain the polio vaccination at the time of his exclusion under guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).[1]  Finally, petitioners allege that respondent’s exclusion of the student violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”).

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

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 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).

Petitioners have not met their burden of proving that the student is entitled to a medical exemption from varicella.  In the  first medical request, the physician indicated that the “[p]arents believe[d]” that an administration of the varicella vaccination caused a “sudden and rapid decline in cognitive development.”  He further reported that the student was “[p]hysically unwell after vaccinations including cold/flu symptoms, shallow and difficulty breathing.”  In the second medical request, the physician stated—again, based on information provided by petitioners—that the student experienced “shortness of breath after [the] first varicella vaccine.”[2]  While concerning, there is no evidence that these reactions were observed or documented by anyone other than petitioners.  Such uncorroborated assertions are insufficient to prove that an administration of the varicella vaccination caused the conditions identified by petitioners (see Appeal of J.O. and E.O., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,471; Appeal of S.G., 59 id., Decision No. 17,830; Appeal of P.K., 59 id., Decision No. 17,802).

I have considered petitioners’ remaining requests and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE