and discretionary rulings under the abuse of discretion standard. Munn v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863, 870 n.10 (Fed.Cir.1992). The third standard of review, abuse of discretion, is applicable when the special master excludes evidence or otherwise limits the record upon which he relies. See id. As this court has stated, the third standard applies to the special master’s evidentiary rulings, including those regarding the qualifications of an expert: Notably, such [discretionary] rulings include determinations regarding the qualification of expert witnesses and the reliability of expert testimony. Piscopo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 66 Fed.Cl. 49, 53 (2005); see [Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142-43, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997)] (<HOLDING>) ]; [Terran ex rel. Terran v. Sec’y of Health &
holding that appellate courts should review district court determinations of the adequacy of damage awards under an abuse of discretion standard holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion recognizing the abuse of discretion standard and the requirement of evidentiary support for a finding of estoppel holding that abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review of a trial courts evidentiary rulings including determinations regarding the reliability of expert testimony under daubert v merrell dow pharm inc 509 us 579 113 sct 2786 125 led2d 469 1993