United States Court of Federal Claims, 2025

Christo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 8, 2025 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 25-0294V

FORREST CHRISTO, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 8, 2025 v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Madylan Louise Yarc, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 19, 2025, Forrest Christo filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza vaccine received on October 25, 2023. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that his injury lasted longer than six months and neither Petitioner, nor any other party, has ever received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 9, 10. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 4, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table in that “petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of his right shoulder prior to vaccination; pain and reduced range of motion [were] limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that the records indicate that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months and has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.