medical opinions need not “be expressed in terms of certainty in order to serve as the basis for a well[-]grounded claim”), and Molloy v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 513, 516 (1996) (distinguishing Tirpak and stating in dictum that medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as “could” suffices for requirement of well-grounded claim, with Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 518, 519 (1996) (ignoring Tirpak and holding that medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as “possible” suffices for requirement of well-grounded claim), and Watai v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 441, 443 (1996) (ignoring Tirpak and holding that medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as “very well might have been” suffices for requirement of well-grounded claim); cf. Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 398, 403, 406 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 398, 406 (1995)
holding that where a defendant attempts to explain his actions and reveals his parolee status on direct examination the specific reason for his parole could not have been enlightening to the jury and therefore was not relevant holding that there was a sufficiently direct relationship between restricting the defendants selfemployment as a roofer and his bank fraud conviction when the defendant used his roofing business to facilitate the fraud and after his initial sentence he failed to provide information about his business activities to his probation officer holding appellants flatfeet claim to be well grounded based on his statements regarding continuity of symptomatology inservice notation indicating worsening of his pes planus and confirmed existence of current condition on va examination his statements as to continuity of symptomatology provide a direct link between the appellants active service and the current state of his condition holding that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of his miranda rights could be introduced to impeach that defendants credibility when the jury was instructed that the statements were not to be considered as evidence of his guilt holding plaintiff had sufficiently stated such a claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs with regard to his hepatitis c condition his pancreatic condition and the gout in his hand