Task: songer_weightev

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?" This includes discussions of whether the litigant met the burden of proof. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner filed his application with the Railroad Retirement Board for an annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S. C.A. § 228a et seq., on April 29, 1946, alleging he was sixty-five years of age and still held rights to return to service with the Florida East Coast Railway Company.
The application was referred to the Bureau of Retirement Claims, a unit of the Board, and after an initial hearing the Bureau found that petitioner was discharged from the service of the Railway on May 21, 1933 and was not, as he claimed, in “the employment relation to an employer” on August 29, 1935. He was not otherwise an “employee” on or after August 29, 1935 and was not eligible for an annuity under the Act. Petitioner was notified of the Bureau’s finding. He then appealed to the Appeals Council of the Board and after submitting his evidence to that unit of the Board, the Council on. February 8, 1947, sustained the decision of the Bureau. He then appealed to the Board, claiming the Appeals Council erred in its action. The Board remanded the case to the Appeals Council, directing it to hear and receive additional evidence to be offered by petitioner, and also further argument, which the Council did, and on August 16, 1948, it rendered its decision again affirming the decision of the Bureau of Retirement Claims. Petitioner again appealed to the Board, and on April 19, 1949 the Board affirmed the decision of the Appeals Council denying the claim of petitioner to an annuity. The Board adopted as part of its decision an additional finding of fact to the effect that petitioner had notice before August 29, 1935 of his discharge by the Railway.
The decision of the Board is before us for review under section 11 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228k, and section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. § 355(f).
Petitioner claims service with the Railway as a trainman from November 11, 1913 to March 1915, and as a switchman from January 1925 to January 1929, and from June 1932 to May 1933. Pie made claim for other Railroad service in and before June 1932. He says he was an “employee” on the “enactment date” of the Railroad Retirement Act August 29, 1935, by being “in the employment relation to” an “employer.”
The Board found the petitioner was not in the employment relation to the employer on August 29, 1935, as required by the Act, and was not eligible for an annuity under the Act. The record made before the Board amply sttpports its decision, no error of law appearing, its decision is conclusive on this court. Squires v. Railroad Retirement Board, 5 Cir., 161 F.2d 182, and cases there cited; Barton v. Railroad Retirement Board, 3 Cir., 177 F.2d 710; Monahan v. Railroad Retirement Board, 7 Cir., 181 F.2d 751.
The decision of the Board is affirmed.

Question: Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: A