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:
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 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: G