uses three distinct standards of review in Vaccine Act cases, depending upon which aspect of a special master’s judgment is under scrutiny: These standards vary in application as well as degree of deference. Each standard applies to a different aspect of the judgment. Fact findings are reviewed ... under the arbitrary and capricious standard; legal questions under the “not in accordance with law” s uman Servs., 195 F.3d 1302, 1316 (Fed.Cir.1999) ] (reviewing for abuse of discretion the Special Master’s decision to reject as unreliable the testimony of the petitioner’s expert). Determinations subject to review for abuse of discretion must be sustained unless “manifestly erroneous.” Piscopo, 66 Fed.Cl. at 53; see Milmark Servs., Inc. v. United States, 731 F.2d 855, 860 (Fed.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Jarvis v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human
holding that decisions that lie within the trial courts discretion are to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous holding that award and rate of prejudgment interest are within trial courts discretion holding that a chancellors finding of fact will not be reversed unless manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous holding that legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion