Task: songer_genapel2

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 is to determine the nature of the second listed appellant. If there are more than two appellants and at least one of the additional appellants has a different general category from the first appellant, then consider the first appellant with a different general category to be the second appellant.

PER CURIAM:
The final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare denied claimant’s application for the establishment of a period of disability and an award of disability insurance benefits. Claimant then brought an action for review by the district court of the Secretary’s decision pursuant to section 205 (g) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g).
Upon review of the record, considered as a whole, the district court found that the decision of the Secretary was supported by substantial evidence and granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment.
The medical testimony as to the claimant’s physical condition was conflicting. Her personal physician, who was a general practitioner, expressed his opinion that she was unable to work due to an osteo-arthritic condition, but an objective examination made by an orthopedic surgeon resulted in a diagnosis of mild, generalized, degenerative arthritis with essentially full range of motion in claimant’s cervical spine and full range of motion in all other joints. All of the medical evidence was reviewed by another orthopedic surgeon who testified as a medical advisor and he stated his conclusion that claimant had mild, generalized osteo-arthritis and that her condition was usual for a person of her age. Claimant testified in her own behalf as to her asserted physical disabilities.
The trial examiner concluded that the evidence did not establish that claimant’s impairment was so severe as to disable her from gainful employment, that she should be able to return to her regular job in a textile plant and that she could also do other and lighter work which was readily available. This became the final decision of the Secretary.
Upon review of the record as a whole, we find substantial evidence to support the determinations of the Secretary and the decision below will be
Affirmed.

Question: What is the nature of the second listed appellant whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed appellant?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: I