in 2002, an abdominal and a back examination administered by a registered nurse practitioner in 2001, and an abdominal and back examination in 1998 by an examiner whose education, training, or experience is not ascertainable from the record. Neither section 5103A nor the implementing regulations define the term “medical examination,” and neither party cites any judicial decision interpreting this term. The Secretary argues that the examinations were adequate because, among other things, this Court affords no greater deference to a physician versus other healthcare professionals. Secretary’s Br. at 22. We have never required, nor do we intend to do so here, that medical examinations under section 5103A only be conducted by physicians. See, e.g., Goss v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 109, 114 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 270, 273 (1993)
recognizing that only a claimant is entitled to the secretarys assistance in the development of the facts pertinent to the claim the benefit of the doubt and the determination whether the claim is well grounded recognizing that nurses statements regarding nexus were sufficient to make a claim well grounded holding that medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as very well might have been although not conclusive suffices to well ground claim holding that a failure to make out a hostile work environment claim effectively disposes of the constructive discharge claim as well recognizing that vcaa requires remand for readjudication if claim had been denied as not well grounded