Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.
Allie Rae Fouts, as executrix of John Franklin Bell, sued upon a policy of war risk insurance, alleging that the United States, acting through the Veterans’ Bureau, had rejected her claim, and that a disagreement thus arose. A special plea was filed that no appeal had been taken to the Director of the Veterans’ Bureau and no denial of the claim had been made by him or any one acting in his name. On a trial of the plea a verdict was directed sustaining it, and the suit was dismissed. This appeal followed.
The evidence in the bill of exceptions consists mostly of extracts from letters,. no signatures being shown, which are recited to have passed between “the Veterans’ Bureau’’ and “the counsel for plaintiff.” They show that the executrix made claim under the policy, that the Bureau wrote that only a part of the insurance which had been revived under section 305 of the World War Veterans’ Act, 38 USCA, § 516, was of force, and that it went to a relative of the soldier who was named sole legatee in his will rather than to the executrix. No formal judgment is shown. Thereafter “the Veterans’ Bureau” was requested by “Plaintiff’s counsel” to “review the insurance feature of this ease” with additional proofs. The Bureau replied, stating that the request would be acted on by the Insurance Council, and sent a blank to be filled out touching the deceased, which blank was executed and returned. No further action on the claim appears to have been taken before suit was filed. Plaintiff’s counsel was representing both the executrix and the legatee, and he argues that the request for review was made in behalf of the legatee, with the sole purpose of getting allowed to her the face of the policy rather than the lesser amount awarded; and that he understood the letter stating that the executrix took nothing to be a final rejection of her claim. This contention can hardly be sustained, seeing that the record expressly states that plaintiff’s counsel made the request for a review, not that the counsel for the legatee did. But, taking his contention as correct, the executrix none the less sued prematurely. The administration of the War Risk Insurance is committed to the Veterans’ Bureau, and the Director is to decide all questions arising about it. 38 USCA § 426. Suit is permitted only after a disagreement is reached; and, because of dispute as to what would constitute a disagreement, it was enacted July 3, 1930, 46 Stats. 993 (38 USCA § 445), that “the term ‘disagreement’ means a denial of the claim by the director or some one acting in his name on an appeal to the director.” There is nothing in this record to show that any appeal was ever taken to the Director of the Veterans’ Bureau, or that he or any one acting for him had rejected the claim of the executrix. The Director is not mentioned in the pleadings or in the evidence as we have it. Congress could so condition ’ the consent of the United States to be sued as to require a precedent appeal to the Director and adverse action by him. The suit may not be maintained otherwise. United States v. Densmore (C. C. A.) 58 F.(2d) 748; United States v. Collins (C. C. A.) 61 F.(2d) 1002; Griffin v. United States (C. C. A.) 60 F.(2d) 339; United States v. Peters (C. C. A.) 62 F.(2d) 977; Straw v. United States (C. C. A.) 62 F.(2d) 757. It is the general rule that in suing a government administrative remedies must be exhausted before appeal is made to the courts. Error is not made to appear.
Judgment affirmed.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A