Task: songer_r_fed

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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

OAKES, Chief Judge:
Joseph D. White appeals an October 26, 1989, judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, John T. Elfvin, Judge, dismissing his complaint and affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) that found he was not disabled and therefore not entitled to Social Security disability insurance benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423 (1982 & Supp. V 1987). Concluding that the district court erred in finding that substantial evidence supported the Secretary’s decision, we vacate its judgment and remand the matter to the Secretary for further consideration of the medical evidence.
White initially filed an application for Social Security disability benefits on July 29, 1986. Having worked as a millwright for 23 years for the Republic Steel Corporation, White was 50 years old when he filed his application. In 1976, he had undergone surgery to correct a congenital abnormality known as bilateral pars defect, a spinal disorder. Although he continued to work until 1981, when he was laid off due to the closing of his plant, White received treatment for the nine years following his 1976 operation for ruptured discs, constant pain in his lower back and extremities, chronic lumbar instability, degenerative osteoarthritis, and possible spinal sten-osis. He alleged that he became disabled in January 1985 due to a back impairment perhaps resulting from the removal of a herniated lumbar disc.
In denying White’s application for benefits initially and on' reconsideration, the Social Security Administration stated,' based on its review of the medical evidence, that White was capable of performing medium work. Following White’s request for a hearing, an administrative law judge (“AU”) on August 28, 1987, found that he retained the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of light work and therefore was not disabled. The AU’s decision became the final decision of the Secretary on February 5, 1988.
White initiated this action seeking review of the Secretary’s decision on February 24, 1988. Thereafter, United States Magistrate Edmund F. Maxwell, to whom this case had been referred, filed a report recommending reversal of the Secretary's decision. The district court, however, rejected the magistrate’s report, finding instead that the decision of the Secretary was supported by substantial evidence, and dismissed White’s complaint. The district court concluded that the Secretary's finding that White retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work was supported by the report of White’s treating physician, Dr. James Matthews. We disagree. Because we find Dr. Matthews’ report to be inconclusive as to White’s ability to perform light work, and because the Secretary failed to articulate the basis for the findings as to White’s residual functional capacity, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the matter to the Secretary for more detailed and complete consideration of the medical record.
DISCUSSION
A claimant is considered disabled under the Social Security Act if he can demonstrate an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment” that can be expected to result in death or to last at least twelve months.
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The claimant’s physical or mental impairment must be “of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
Here, White satisfied his initial burden of proving that his impairment prevents him from returning to his past work. Both the record and the AU’s finding that White “is unable to perform his past relevant work as a millwright” because of the heavy exer-tional demands involved in such work support this conclusion. Therefore, the burden shifts to the Secretary to prove, with specific reference to the medical evidence, that White can perform alternative substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. See Bluvband v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 886, 891 (2d Cir.1984); Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582, 586-88 (2d Cir.1984).
Although the AU concluded that White “still has a residual functional capacity to perform the physical exertional requirements of a full range of light work” and therefore is capable of alternative employment, he failed to set forth the medical evidence or basis for this determination. Although the failure to specify the basis for a conclusion as to residual functional capacity is reason enough to vacate a decision of the Secretary, see, e.g., Ferraris, 728 F.2d at 586-88, the district court nevertheless found that the May 13, 1987, report of Dr. Matthews, White’s treating physician, provided substantial evidence in support of the Secretary’s determination.
. Even assuming the unlikely possibility that the AU’s passing reference to Dr. Matthews’ report on White’s ability to perform work-related activities was intended to form the basis of the finding of White’s residual functional capacity, we conclude that that report by no means indicates that White can perform a full range of light work. According to the Secretary’s regulations, “light work” involves the lifting of no more than twenty pounds at a time, but often requires frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to ten pounds. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (1989). Moreover, a job in the category of “light work” requires “a good deal of walking or standing,” or may involve sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. See id. To be considered capable of performing a full or wide range of light work, the claimant must have the ability to do “substantially all” of these activities. See id.
The district court presumably found that Dr. Matthews’ report indicated White could perform light work on the basis of the report’s conclusions that White’s ability to stand or walk was not affected by his impairment, and that White could lift up to a maximum of 25 pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently. However, in the same report, Dr. Matthews found that White could sit for up to only four hours in an eight-hour work day, and for only two to three hours without interruption. Dr. Matthews moreover concluded that White’s impairment affected his ability to handle, push, and pull. These findings of Dr. Matthews have objective support in the medical record in that Dr. David Della Porta concluded that White has a “marked disc space narrowing at L5-S1 ... associated with considerable sclerotic changes of the contiguous vertebra] end plates at that level as well as a moderate degree of anterior os-teophytic spurring and a minimal degree of spondylolisthesis of the L5-S1 level.” Given that sitting, handling, pushing, and pulling are included in the list of activities which a person deemed capable of light work should be able to perform, we think the district court erred in finding that Dr. Matthews’ report supported the Secretary’s determination. Because we have no statement from the Secretary or in the AU’s decision stating any other basis upon which the determination of White’s residual functional capacity was made, we conclude that the Secretary failed to meet its burden of proving other jobs in the national economy which claimant is capable of performing. However, given the inconclusive nature of Dr. Matthews’ report and the other medical evidence in the record, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the matter to the Secretary for further consideration and perhaps amplification of the medical record.
Judgment vacated. Cause remanded.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officialss"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1