Vaccine Court Awards Family $310,000, Rules Encephalitis After MMR Shot Killed Toddler
The family of 14-month-old Violet Skye Rodela, who died 19 days after getting an MMR and other routine vaccines, won compensation from the VICP for the toddler’s death.
The family of another infant who died in her sleep after receiving routine vaccines has won a settlement from the U.S. government’s vaccine court, which determined the vaccines caused the infant to develop encephalitis.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) awarded Matthew Rodela and Casandra Hogan $310,000 for the death of their 14-month-old daughter, Violet Skye Rodela.
Violet died on March 11, 2015, 19 days after receiving the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, along with several other routine childhood immunizations.
The award included a $250,000 standard death benefit and $60,000 for pain and suffering. The court granted the settlement, which also covered the family’s legal fees, in September 2024. However, technical issues with a California probate court caused a delay in finalizing the financial award.
The vaccine court’s decision grants Violet’s parents legal recognition that their daughter suffered an adverse event from the MMR vaccine listed on the official Vaccine Injury Table. The table lists vaccine reactions presumed to be caused by a vaccine, based on specific medical and timing criteria.
Infant deaths following vaccinations are often classified as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), or for toddlers 12-18 months old, sudden unexplained death in childhood (SUDC). According to vaccine court researcher Wayne Rohde, author of two books on the VICP, only about 50 infant death cases have been compensated since the program was established in 1986.
The ruling in Violet’s death, along with another award this year issued to the family of Anna Sims, who died suddenly after receiving routine vaccines, could set an important precedent for future infant cases in the VICP, according to a working group of researchers and advocates studying vaccine-induced infant death. The group published an analysis of both cases.
According to attorney Patrick White, lead author on the analysis:
“On paper, these are two very different cases — different ages, different vaccines, different timelines. But in practice, Rodela reinforces the same message as Sims: An unknown number of so-called ‘unexplained’ pediatric deaths are, in reality, caused by routine childhood vaccines.
“Furthermore, it shows that these cases can be winnable when petitioners build a coherent, pathology-aligned narrative supported by strong experts.”
‘We miss and grieve every day the loss of our Violet Skye’
Violet was born healthy on Jan. 1, 2014, and her early development appeared normal, according to court documents. At her 12-month well-baby visit on Feb. 20, 2015, she received the MMR vaccine along with several other shots routinely recommended for children her age.
In the days that followed, Violet exhibited behavior that was “concerning and out of character.” Videos taken by her father, her primary caregiver, showed that she had difficulty standing up and had a seizure, according to medical experts who reviewed the footage.
About a week later, Violet’s mother witnessed the toddler acting strangely — she was staring and appeared unresponsive and confused. At the time, her mother didn’t realize that her daughter’s symptoms indicated she was having a seizure, so she didn’t seek medical attention.
Nineteen days after her shots, on March 11, Violet’s mother found her unresponsive and not breathing shortly after she put her down for a nap.
Violet’s mother told her story on a GoFundMe page:
“Her big sister Rosemary and I found Violet unresponsive when we went to get her up to play. I performed CPR while Matthew (Violet Skye’s Papa) called 911. She was taken to Kaiser hospital by the Irvine Fire Department staff who responded to the call. Every attempt to bring her back to us was made. To our extreme sadness she never responded. …
“We miss and grieve every day the loss of our Violet Skye.”
Pathological evidence of brain inflammation swayed court
The autopsy listed the cause of death as “undetermined.” The medical examiner categorized Violet’s death as a SUDC, leaving her family without answers as to what had happened.
In February 2017, the family filed a claim in the VICP.
As the case unfolded, experts on both sides examined Violet’s medical history, the events preceding her death and the analyses of her brain tissue.
Her parents’ experts painted a picture of a child whose brain had been undergoing inflammation for at least a week or two before she died.
They pointed to activated microglia — the brain’s immune cells — found throughout multiple regions of Violet’s brain, along with reactive astrocytes, which typically appear only after days of sustained injury.
They also identified lymphocytic perivascular cuffing, a hallmark of encephalitis — findings they argued in the vaccine court were unmistakable signs of an inflammatory process affecting the brain.
One of the key pieces of evidence was Violet’s head growth.
At her 12-month appointment, her head circumference measured 46.1 centimeters. At autopsy, just 19 days later, it measured 47.4 centimeters — an increase of 1.3 centimeters over 19 days. Experts testified that the change could not be explained by normal growth, especially given that the toddler was also falling off her weight-growth curve.
They attributed the rapid expansion to cerebral edema, or pressure from swelling inside the skull. The evidence persuaded the court, which determined that the swelling was consistent with other pathological signs of inflammation.
Experts on both sides agreed that Violet suffered seizures. The region of her brain most affected by inflammation — the hippocampus — is known to be highly prone to triggering seizures.
The court concluded that the episode was not only consistent with encephalitis but likely a direct manifestation of it.
Government experts were unable to offer an alternative, clear cause for Violet’s death. One specialist suggested she may have suffered from SUDC, and another proposed she may have harbored an undetected viral infection — even though she had shown no outward signs of illness beyond mild sweating.
Ultimately, the court concluded that speculative or hypothetical explanations could not overcome the concrete pathological evidence of brain inflammation.
Violet’s death was not an unexplained tragedy
The VICP relies on the Vaccine Injury Table — the list of vaccines, known associated injuries, and the time periods in which they must occur to qualify for compensation — to make its rulings.
If a petitioner suffers a known injury within the short period prescribed by the table, it is presumed that a vaccine caused the injury. The petitioner is then eligible for compensation without proof of causation.
Because Violet’s encephalitis began within the 5- to 15-day window specified for measles-containing vaccines, her parents were not required to prove that the vaccine caused her encephalitis — only that she had encephalitis and that its first symptoms arose in that period.
The court found both conditions met by a preponderance of the evidence. In the court’s view, Violet’s death was not an unexplained tragedy. It was the foreseeable result of a pathological process that began in the days after her vaccination and ultimately overwhelmed her young brain, according to White.
The ruling stops short of blaming the MMR vaccine directly — a distinction built into the law — but it acknowledges that Violet’s encephalitis occurred within the time frame that legally presumes a connection.
Lessons from Rodela and Sims: coroners missed the brain inflammation
In the case of Anna Sims, the court did not find the infant suffered a table injury. So to argue that the family was entitled to compensation, their attorneys had to prove by “a preponderance of evidence” that the vaccine caused the injury. This pathway to compensation is significantly more challenging.
According to White, taken together, the cases offer clear lessons for how families whose children die unexpectedly following vaccination can navigate the VICP, especially when those children show rare signs of brain inflammation.
In both cases, the coroner’s office missed the brain inflammation that experts identified during litigation. White suggested this is because pathologists don’t know to look for it — which means they “cannot recognize vaccine injury when they see it.” It also explains why many infant and toddler deaths go “unexplained.”
The two cases also show the power of a clear “evidentiary framework,” he said. The petitioners showed a biologically plausible mechanism, a credible timeline and presented pathological evidence consistent with that mechanism.
The pathological findings, evidence of seizures and behavior changes, and testimony from highly qualified experts were also key in both cases.
He wrote:
“Both cases were built on disciplined, evidence-driven storytelling that clearly explained how the child’s symptoms and pathology evidenced a specific injury which was shown to be temporally locked to their recent vaccinations.
“The cases] may be outliers with respect to case outcomes, but the tragic stories of the lives and deaths of Anna Sims and Violet Rodela are not unique.”
Thousands of pediatric deaths each year are attributed to SIDS or SUDC.
White closed the group’s analysis with a final thought:
“I can’t help but wonder if this ‘critical period’ of ‘rapid brain development’ is maybe not the best time to inject the children with known toxic materials in order to provoke an immune response.”
Related articles in The Defender
$310,000 as compensation for murder? And this is nevertheless a legal victory.
Thank you for keeping us informed CHD. We so appreciate your hard work.