Because the school physician was also Daniel's personal physician, there was no third member. The panel decision indicated that the panel decided not to allow a tryout because, based on the information it had received, it believed that Daniel's presence would create a hazardous condition both to his potential teammates and opponents. When petitioners' attorney later attempted to file the petition, it was rejected by my Office of Counsel for several procedural defects. It also appears that petitioners' attorney was informed that service upon the high school principal might not be sufficient under the Commissioner's Regulations. Petitioners' attorney thereafter telephoned both respondent's superintendent and one of respondent's attorneys.
Petitioners claim that the panel's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Their main argument seems to be that the panel's decision was based exclusively on the basis of the Athletic Performance Test administered to Daniel, but not to any of the girls who were trying out for the team, and that this violated applicable Commissioner's Regulations and guidelines. Petitioners also allege that the panelists promised to contact the school's field hockey coach for her evaluation, but failed to do so. Respondent generally denies that the determination was arbitrary or capricious, and denies that the panelists made any commitment to consult with the field hockey coach. Respondent also argues that the matter is moot, in that by the time the pleadings and other papers had been served, it was too late to render any meaningful relief. I will not dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction based upon defective service.