Task: songer_subevid

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 civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court's interpretation of the substantial evidence rule support the government? For example, "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" or "more than a mere scintilla". This issue is present only when the court indicates that it is using this doctrine, rather than when the court is merely discussing the evidence to determine whether the evidence supports the position of the appellant or respondent." 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".

PER CURIAM.
In Del Costello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the six-month statute of limitations set forth in section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), would apply to hybrid breach of duty of representation/breach of employment contract actions such as the case at bar. Although Del Costello was decided after Joseph Scaglione commenced this action, we recently held in Graves v. Smith’s Transfer Corp., 736 F.2d 819 (1st Cir.1984), that the period of limitation announced in Del Costello would apply retroactively. Since we held in Simpson v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 681 F.2d 81 (1st Cir.1982), that the decision to apply a holding retroactively, once made, governs all future applications of that holding, we are bound to apply the six-month period to Scaglione’s claim, and will not entertain arguments that under the criteria laid out in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), its application to his particular situation is unwarranted.
The district court found after trial to the bench that Scaglione’s cause of action against defendant Communications Workers of America, Local 1395, accrued before June 29, 1977. 586 F.Supp. 1018. This determination, amply supported by the evidence, bars Scaglione’s action against the Local, which was not commenced until December 29, 1977. Scaglione does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that his causes of action against defendant AT & T Technologies, Inc. must have accrued simultaneously with or prior to the accrual of his cause of action against the Local; these actions are thus also barred. This conclusion renders without force Scaglione’s argument that his actions against AT&T Technologies, Inc. are not time barred because they relate back to the time his action against the Local was filed.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court's interpretation of the substantial evidence rule support the government? For example, "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" or "more than a mere scintilla". This issue is present only when the court indicates that it is using this doctrine, rather than when the court is merely discussing the evidence to determine whether the evidence supports the position of the appellant or respondent.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D