1. “Whether the special master abused his discretion by denying relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) when a mistake of fact infected the special master’s decision denying compensation.”
2. “Whether the special master abused his discretion by denying relief under Rule 60(b)(6) given that Counsel lacked actual authority to compromise Ms. DiMasi’s significant-aggravation claim.”
3. “Whether the special master abused his discretion by denying Ms. DiMasi’s Rule 60 motion without an evidentiary hearing.”
4. “Whether the special master abused his discretion by relying on the presumption this Court rejected in Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021).”
1. “[A]lthough Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes relief from judgment for a mistake, we conclude that the asserted mistake of counsel and the special master—a mistake, based on assertedly inaccurate post-vaccination records, about the precise post-vaccination timing of manifestation of Ms. DiMasi’s critical symptoms—was harmless as to the initial-onset claim. . . . The special master did not abuse his discretion in making the determination we deem decisive on the initial-onset claim.”
2. “We hold that it was an abuse of discretion for the special master to decline to set aside the 2019 judgment to permit adjudication of a significant-aggravation claim in this case.”
3. “We have considered the other grounds that Ms. DiMasi raised in seeking Rule 60(b) relief, but we see no need for further discussion of such grounds.”
4. “We have considered the other grounds that Ms. DiMasi raised in seeking Rule 60(b) relief, but we see no need for further discussion of such grounds.”
