defense or a prima facie case. Although the OAH rule references Rule 60(b), that requirement is not stated in the rule itself. It is derived from our case law. Frausto argues that it is not clear that one in her position (i.e., the successful party at the initial stage of her request for unemployment compensation) is required to show an adequate defense even under Rule 60(b). She cites this court’s decision in Lester v. District of Columbia, 806 A.2d 206, 208 n. 2 (D.C.2002) where we observed that an adequate defense is irrelevant to a Rule 60(b) motion filed by a plaintiff. We agree that, in the circumstances of the present case as above-described, no additional showing was required for purposes of the motion. 8 . See Rodriguez v. Filene’s Basement, Inc., 905 A.2d 177, 180 (D.C.2006) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Frausto also argues that she has a
holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo recognizing de novo standard of review holding that we review legal conclusions of the court of federal claims de novo holding that the oah properly accorded no deference to the determination of the claims examiner where the administrative review of unemployment compensation claims is conducted de novo holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo