Task: songer_respond1_3_2

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 "federal government (including DC)". Your task is to determine which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant.

PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Secretary that appellant has not established disability so as to entitle him to disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S. C.A. §§ 416(i), 423.
The oral testimony of appellant revealed a serious question whether there was disability of mental, psychosomatic or psychoneurotic nature. At the conclusion of the administrative hearing the Hearing Examiner expressed uncertainty whether he should have appellant examined by a psychiatrist. He did not do so and instead relied upon minimal formal reports from a Veterans Administration hospital which themselves were not free of ambiguity about appellant’s condition. This case is within the principle of Page v. Celebrezze, 311 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1963):
“[Wjhere credibility choices of a non-routine medical nature have a likely decisive significance, the record must afford some assurance on these factors. * * * [W]here the issue is not reasonably susceptible of presentation and determination on the basis of mere written, formal reports, some adequate steps must be taken to adapt a procedure which will enable the trier of the fact to determine the truth of the matter.”
Id. at 760.
The case must be reversed and remanded for further hearings before the administrative agency. As in Page, the parties should be free to supplement the present record by other evidence, and there should be a new decision on appellant’s inorganic conditions. See 311 F.2d at 763 n.7.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the Secretary for further hearing not inconsistent with his opinion.
. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.927:
“Conduct of Hearing.
* * * The bearing examiner shall inquire fully into the matters at issue and shall receive in evidence the testimony of witnesses and any documents which are relevant and material to such matters. If the hearing examiner believes that there is relevant and material evidence available which has not been presented at the hearing, the hearing examiner may adjourn the hearing or, at any time prior to the mailing of notice of the decision, reopen the hearing for the receipt of such evidence. * * * ”

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)". Which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant?
A. cabinet level department
B. courts or legislative
C. agency whose first word is "federal"
D. other agency, beginning with "A" thru "E"
E. other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"
F. other agency, beginning with "O" thru "R"
G. other agency, beginning with "S" thru "Z"
H. Distric of Columbia
I. other, not listed, not able to classify
Answer:

Answer: A