Appeal of L.M., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the North Salem Central School District regarding immunization.

Decision No. 18,366

(December 18, 2023)

Nicholas-Gabriel Chabert, Esq., attorney for petitioner

Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Hilary L. Moreira, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the North Salem Central School District (“respondent”) that her child (the “student”) is not entitled to medical exemptions from the immunization requirements of Public Health Law (“PHL”) § 2164.  The appeal must be dismissed.

The student was enrolled in respondent’s district for the 2022-2023 school year.  On or about August 8, 2022, petitioner submitted, on behalf of the student, a request for a medical exemption pursuant to PHL § 2164.  Therein, the student’s physician described the student’s contraindication/precaution as a prior “reaction” to vaccinations and a diagnosis of ADHD.  The physician also opined “that [the student]’s medical diagnosis and history coupled with the unavailability of patient data and longitudinal studies on individuals receiving immunizations with his underlying medical condition pose a high risk to his health.”  By letter dated August 29, 2022, respondent denied petitioner’s request.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on October 28, 2022.

Petitioner contends that respondent erred in rejecting her request for a medical exemption from the immunization requirements of PHL § 2164.  For relief, petitioner requests that the student be granted a medical exemption from the immunization requirements of PHL § 2164 and permitted to attend respondent's schools.

Respondent argues that the appeal is untimely and that it reasonably denied petitioner's request for a medical exemption from the immunization requirements of PHL § 2164.

The appeal must be dismissed as moot.  The Commissioner will only decide matters in actual controversy and will not render a decision on a state of facts that no longer exists due to the passage of time or a change in circumstances (Appeal of Sutton, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,331; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 48 id. 532, Decision No. 15,940; Appeal of M.M., 48 id. 527, Decision No. 15,937; see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).  Where the Commissioner can no longer award a petitioner meaningful relief on his or her claims, no live controversy remains and the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of R.B., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,394; Appeal of N.C., 40 id. 445, Decision No. 14,522).  The record reflects that the student turned eighteen years of age in May 2023.  PHL § 2164 only applies to “child[ren],” who are defined as “person[s] between the ages of two months and eighteen years” (PHL § 2164 [1] [b]).  Therefore, respondent may no longer require the student to obtain the school-age vaccinations identified in PHL 2164 as a condition of attending school.  Because no meaningful relief may be granted at this juncture, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.

In light of this determination, I need not address the parties’ remaining arguments.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE