Doe v. Webster Cent. Sch. Dist.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
• Writing for the Court: ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD Chief Judge
• Docket Number: 6:25-CV-06599 EAW
• Decision Date: 31 December 2025
• Citation: Doe v. Webster Cent. Sch. Dist., 6:25-CV-06599 EAW (W.D. N.Y. Dec 31, 2025)
• Parties: JANE DOE, on behalf of her minor child, SARAH DOE, Plaintiffs, v. WEBSTER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRIAN NEENAN, MARGARET CALLAHAN, M.D., and CHRIS CALLAHAN, Defendants.

1

JANE DOE, on behalf of her minor child, SARAH DOE, Plaintiffs, v. WEBSTER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRIAN NEENAN, MARGARET CALLAHAN, M.D., and CHRIS CALLAHAN, Defendants.

No. 6:25-CV-06599 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York

December 31, 2025

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD Chief Judge

INTRODUCTION

This case involves claims that a minor child has been excluded from the sixth grade because she is disabled-because she cannot receive the necessary Tdap vaccine due to existing medical conditions. Her mother is the plaintiff who has brought the claim on the child's behalf, and she seeks a preliminary injunction allowing her daughter to attend school. In support of her request, she relies on two medical exemption forms completed by two doctors-both of whom are purportedly the minor child's treating physicians even though one is located in Florida and the other is located about 80 miles away. Neither exemption form is sworn to under oath, and neither is supported by independent medical proof. By contrast, the school district has submitted sworn statements from medical professionals. Because the requisite standard for a preliminary injunction has not been met, and because a child is not entitled to a vaccine exemption just based on a doctor's “say-so,” the motion (Dkt. 4) is denied.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”),^[1] on behalf of her 11-year-old daughter Sarah (“Sarah”) commenced this action on October 22, 2025, against defendants Webster Central School District (“Webster CSD”), its superintendent Brian Neenan, its school physician Margaret Callahan, M.D. (“Dr. Callahan”), and the principal of Spry Middle School (“Spry”) Chris Callahan (collectively “Defendants”), alleging that Sarah was wrongfully excluded from the sixth grade. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (first cause of action); (2) discrimination in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (second cause of action); and (3) an Article 78 proceeding for violation of New York Public Health Law § 2164(8) in the nature of mandamus to compel (third cause of action). (Dkt. 1).^[2] Within days of commencing this action, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)^[3] and preliminary injunction, seeking to allow Sarah to attend Spry and participate in all school-related programs and activities.

(Dkt. 4). The Court set an expedited briefing schedule (Dkt 10), and Defendants filed papers in opposition to the pending motion on November 7, 2025 (Dkt. 13), with Plaintiff filing reply papers on November 11, 2025 (Dkt. 15). Oral argument was held on November 18, 2025, at which time the Court reserved decision. (Dkt. 21). On December 5, 2025, the Court requested further briefing on the extent to which the Second Circuit's decision in Goe v. Zucker, 43 F.4th 19 (2d Cir. 2022), impacted Plaintiff's claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. (Dkt. 25). Plaintiff filed her memorandum on December 12, 2025 (Dkt. 28), with Defendants filing their memorandum on December 19, 2025 (Dkt. 30).

FACTUAL RECORD

At oral argument, Plaintiff's counsel stated that he was not requesting an evidentiary hearing. Thus, the facts as set forth here are taken from the submissions by the parties. Where there is disagreement, it is noted.

Sarah was excluded from school on September 16, 2025, after her request for an exemption from the Tdap^[4] vaccine was denied. (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 4; see Dkt. 4-2 at ¶ 7; Dkt. 45). Plaintiff cites the following in support of her claimed “documented and severe medical history of adverse, escalating, and inflammatory reactions to vaccinations” (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 16):

■ In 2019, about one week after receiving the Tdap and MMR vaccines^[5] on the same day, Sarah became “violently ill with a very high fever, her body broke out in hives, and she suffered from chest congestion, projectile vomiting, and diarrhea.” (Id. at ¶ 17). Plaintiff has submitted a declaration attesting to this alleged vaccine reaction (Dkt. 4-2 at ¶ 2), but there are no medical records documenting the incident.

■ In September 2022, Sarah was hospitalized for four days, at Golisano Children's Hospital in Rochester, New York, in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), with a discharge diagnosis of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (Mis-C) and septic shock. (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 18). The discharge summary submitted by Plaintiff shows that this occurred as the result of an asymptomatic COVID-19 infection not after administration of a vaccine. (Dkt. 6). In fact, the most recent vaccines received by Sarah before this hospitalization occurred more than two years earlier. (Dkt. 13-2 at ¶ 33; Dkt. 13-12 at ¶ 26).

■ Sarah has been diagnosed with a MTHFR gene mutation, that Plaintiff alleges is a genetic condition that impairs Sarah's “ability to detoxify.” (Dkt. 4-2 at ¶ 4). There are no medical records submitted in support of this diagnosis.

A medical exemption form was completed by Joseph A. Riccione, D.O., a New York State licensed physician with an office in Williamsville, New York,^[6] dated August 25, 2025,^[7]stating that Sarah should be exempt from the DTaP, DTP, and Tdap vaccines because:

[Sarah] has a genetic . . . MTHFR Deficiency. This interferes with biotransformation of immunizations, and their preservatives/adjuvants, resulting in increased toxicity. This makes the risk of harm outweigh the benefit of vaccination.

(Dkt. 4-4). By letter dated September 2, 2025, the Webster CSD advised Plaintiff that the request for medical exemption from immunization for the Tdap vaccine was denied because “[p]er Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) precautions and contraindications guidance, MTHFR Deficiency is not a contraindication to receiving the Tdap vaccine.” (Dkt. 4-5).

Another medical exemption statement was completed by Jerry J. Cattelane, Jr., D.O., a New York State licensed physician with an office in Lake City, Florida, dated September 25, 2025, stating that Sarah should be exempt from the DTaP, DTP, and Tdap vaccines because:

Hypersensitivity to vaccines (Z88.7), allergies with adverse reactions (T78.40). Patient had life threatening, multi-organ failure after vaccinations.^[8] Further vaccination is absolutely contraindicated.

(Dkt. 4-7). In response to that submission, the Webster CSD communicated a request for additional information supporting this new request for an exemption as follows:

[W]hich vaccinations [Sarah] received prior to the ‘life threatening, multiorgan failure,' when those vaccinations were received, and when the ‘life threatening, multi-organ failure occurred. We also request that you provide additional information regarding the nature and extent of [Sarah's] ‘hypersensitivity to vaccines,' and ‘allergies with adverse reactions,' as well as the timing of such reactions in relation to the receipt of specific vaccinations.

(Dkt. 4-12). No further information was submitted from either Dr. Riccione or Dr. Cattelane in response to this request. Instead, Plaintiff's counsel responded to the inquiry by referencing Sarah's September 2022 hospitalization, enclosing the discharge summary from that hospitalization, referencing Sarah's 2019 illness, and referencing the MTHFR gene mutation. (Dkt. 4-13). The Webster CSD responded by letter October 20, 2025, denying this second request for exemption, stating as follows:

According to the ACIP contraindication and precautions guidance, a febrile reaction 3-4 days after receipt of MMR and Tdap vaccines, and MTHFR gene mutation are not contraindications to receiving the Tdap vaccine. A history of MIS-C and septic shock not temporally associated with a prior Tdap vaccine within 7 days are not contraindications to receiving the Tdap vaccine.

(Dkt. 4-14 at 1).

Neither of the medical exemption forms was completed by Sarah's treating pediatrician, noted in the medical records as the Culver Medical Group. (See Dkt. 6 at 12; see also Dkt. 13 at ¶ 19). Plaintiff also references the Culver Medical Group as Sarah's pediatrician in her declaration. (Dkt. 4-2 at ¶ 12). And records previously completed by Culver Medical Group noted no health issues, contraindications, or precautions related to vaccines. (Dkt. 13-2 at ¶ 35; Dkt. 13-11; Dkt. 22). Yet during oral argument Plaintiff's counsel represented that Sarah was no longer treating with the Culver Medical Group and that Dr. Riccione was her primary medical care provider. Plaintiff's counsel also contends in a supplemental submission that Dr. Cattelane-who again, is located in Florida-is Sarah's treating physician. (Dkt. 28 at 3). Neither Dr. Riccione nor Dr. Cattelane is a pediatrician. (Dkt. 13 at ¶¶ 8, 17).

Defendants have submitted declarations from Dr. Callahan, a pediatrician currently serving as School Physician for the Webster CSD and Ginger Anderson, BSN, RN, Nurse Coordinator for the Webster CSD (“Nurse Coordinator Anderson”), establishing that neither of the medical exemption requests provided a medical contraindication or precaution, specific to the Tdap vaccine, that was consistent with ACIP guidelines. (Dkt. 13-2 at ¶¶ 20-26; 36; Dkt. 13-12 at ¶¶ 10-17; 27). MTHFR Deficiency, identified as the basis for the requested exemption by Dr. Riccione, is not listed as a medical contraindication or precaution for the Tdap vaccine by ACIP. (Dkt. 13-2 at ¶ 21; Dkt. 136 at 5; Dkt. 13-12 at ¶¶ 10-11). Nor did Dr. Riccione “reference any other ‘nationally recognized evidence-based standard of care' that included MTHFR Deficiency as a medical contraindication or precaution” for the Tdap vaccine. (Dkt. 13-2 at ¶ 22; see also Dkt. 13-12 at ¶ 12). And according to the declaration from Nurse Coordinator Anderson, none of...