Task: songer_respond1_1_4

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

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: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "other". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?
A. medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities
B. private attorney or law firm
C. media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations
D. school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools)
E. housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease
F. entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc.
G. information processing
H. consulting
I. security and/or maintenance service
J. other service (including accounting)
K. other (including a business pension fund)
L. unclear
Answer:

Answer: A