Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

PER CURIAM:
Indigent claimants appeal the judgment of the district court upholding the manner in which Forsyth Memorial Hospital, a recipient of Hill-Burton funds, furnishes services to indigents. Under § 603(e) of the Hill-Burton Act, 42 U.S.C. § 291c(e), and the regulations thereunder, 42 C.F.R. § 53.111(d), a hospital that provides uncompensated services equal to at least three percent of its operating costs presumptively complies with its assurance to provide a reasonable volume of services to indigents. The statute and regulations, however, do not specify how these funds should be allocated.
The appellants contend that the hospital must provide any services that are medically necessary on a “first come, first served” basis until the funds are depleted. The hospital contends that it may allocate the funds on a priority basis: first, to emergency care, and then, if any funds remain, to urgent medical care, and finally, to elective medical care.
The district court ruled that the hospital’s policy did not violate the statute and the regulations. We affirm this ruling for the reasons stated by the district court. We add, however, that the law does not mandate the hospital’s present method of priority allocation. Other methods, such as that advocated by the appellants, would also comply.
The district court also denied the claims of the individual plaintiffs for free medical care because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 300p-2(c). The parties have stipulated that they have exhausted their administrative remedies pending appeal. Accordingly, without objection by the hospital, we remand these claims to the district court.
The judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The hospital shall recover its costs.
Gordon v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc., 409 F.Supp. 708 (M.D.N.C.1976).

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A