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.

PER CURIAM.
This is a social-security disability case. In our previous opinion, filed on June 21, 1985, Camp v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 729 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam), we held that the case had to be remanded to the Secretary for further findings by reason of the mandatory provisions of the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-460, § 2(d), 98 Stat. 1794 (1984). The Secretary found that Camp was under a disability beginning on December 12, 1977, but that the disability terminated on September 1, 1981. This finding, we believed, made it necessary to categorize this case as an “action relating to medical improvement” within the meaning of § 2(d)(6) of the Reform Act. That term includes cases in which an entitlement to disability payments is terminated by an administrative finding that a disability, once found, has ceased to exist.
The Secretary petitioned for rehearing, and, on October 9, 1985, we granted her petition. Thus, the prior panel opinion is vacated and withdrawn, and the case is again before us for decision.
On reconsideration, we now hold that this is not an “action relating to medical improvement” within the meaning of the Reform Act. As the Secretary points out, this is a case in which she determined in a single proceeding the fact of Camp’s disability, the extent of the disability, and the duration of the disability. Thus, this is not, properly speaking, a “termination” or “cessation” case, in which a claimant who was already a recipient of monthly benefits as a result of a favorable decision on a prior application is determined to be no longer disabled, and thus has his benefits terminated, as a result of a subsequent review of his disability and a new decision by a different adjudicator. Section 2(d)(6) of the Reform Act, which defines the term “action relating to medical improvement,” contemplates that mandatory remand will take place only in cases “of a prior determination that the individual was under a disability.” This reference to a “prior determination,” we think, is more naturally read as referring to a previous decision in favor of disability, followed by the claimant’s receipt of benefits, further followed by a new proceeding resulting in cessation or termination on the ground of medical improvement. Cf. Taylor v. Heckler, 769 F.2d 201 (4th Cir.1985) (distinguishing between termination of currently received benefits and determination of discrete period of disability).
Therefore, we now reject our prior conclusion that this action must be remanded for further findings of fact, and we turn to the merits of the appeal.
The ALJ found that claimant was disabled, and that the disability began on January 1, 1977. On review by the Appeals Council, this finding was rejected in part. According to the Appeals Council, disability did not begin until December 12, 1977, and it ended in September, 1981. Accordingly, under the view of the Appeals Council, Camp’s entitlement to disability benefits ended in November of 1981.
Our task is to review the decision of the Secretary, embodied in the opinion of her Appeals Council. The question presented is whether the Appeals Council’s findings as to the duration of Camp’s disability are supported by substantial evidence. It is these findings that we review, not those of the ALJ. The fact that the Appeals Council’s findings diverge from those of the ALJ, however, is relevant to the determination whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the view that the Council took. Here, we have no difficulty in accepting the conclusion that Camp’s disability did not begin until December of 1977. His major problems appear to be emotional, and the Appeals Council points out that there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that he had any psychological or emotional problems before December of 1977.
As to the finding that disability ceased in September, 1981, however, we come to a different conclusion. This finding is not supported by substantial evidence. It fails to defer sufficiently to the ALJ’s discriminating and perceptive evaluation of the evidence and of the claimant’s and his wife’s credibility as witnesses. The Appeals Council, which of course did not see the witnesses, states that the claimant’s allegations of constant, severe pain are not credible, but this statement, especially in the face of a contrary conclusion by the ALJ, lacks substantial support in the record.
The Appeals Council seems to have been especially impressed by the psychiatric report of Robert L. Lewis, M.D., dated September 10, 1981. This report appears to have persuaded the Council that Camp’s psychological problems had largely been resolved in September of 1981. The Council points out, correctly, that Dr. Lewis found that Camp’s “conversion reaction” did not prevent him from performing simple, repetitive tasks and responding appropriately to co-workers or supervisors. But Dr. Lewis’s report also states that Camp’s abilities to relate to other people, to understand, carry out, and remember instructions, and to perform varied tasks are moderately impaired, and that these limitations can be expected to last for 12 months or longer. According to Dr. Lewis, Camp’s prognosis at the time was “[p]oor____ He might do well as a Rehab student, but his passivity would seem to indicate that the Rehab counselor would have to take an active role in getting him lined up to enter training.” R. 242.
We cannot agree that this most recent psychiatric report shows such improvement in Camp’s ability to function as to justify the conclusion that his disability, which concededly began in 1977, had ceased in 1981. There is evidence in the record supporting the Appeals Council’s finding, but the evidence is not, in our view, “substantial.”
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court, granting the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment, is affirmed insofar as the Secretary held that Camp’s disability did not begin until December 12, 1977. To the extent that it approved a finding that disability ceased in September of 1981, however, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the District Court with directions to remand to the Secretary for computation and payment of benefits from and after November of 1981.
It is so ordered.
. The Hon. William H. Schulze.

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