Task: songer_r_fiduc

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 "fiduciaries". 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.

AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge:
This appeal was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation, United States Department of Labor, seeking reversal of the ruling of the District Court which enjoined him from enforcing his compensation order in favor of J. B. Goins. The Deputy Commissioner has voluntarily dismissed his appeal, but J. B. Goins who intervened now prosecutes the appeal alone.
Appellant suffered physical injuries in án accident on April 3, 1961, in the course and scope of his employment by Noble Drilling Corporation, for which he was paid compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. On April 2, 1962, his employer and its compensation insurer ceased compensation payments on the basis of medical reports which indicated that appellant was able to return to his previous employment at that time. However, the Deputy Commissioner found that appellant continued to be disabled subsequent to that date and issued an order which awarded additional compensation. On review of the Deputy Commissioner’s order, the District Court held that there was no substantial evidence and no reasonable basis in the record for the Deputy Commissioner’s finding of disability. We affirm.
The record in this case consisted of the testimony of Goins, by personal appearance, and the written medical reports of eleven doctors who examined and treated him. Goins’ employer provided six of the doctors; the other five were recommended by his attorney. The parties stipulated that if the doctors were called to testify they would testify in accordance with their respective written reports contained in the file. None of the physicians appeared in person, therefore, to testify.
The Deputy Commissioner’s findings of fact (including his supplementary findings) contained no reference to the medical reports and no analysis of the respective medical findings of these physicians, but spoke only of the facts surrounding the accident, the resulting injury, and the expenses incurred. However, the Deputy Commissioner made an award of compensation, as we have already indicated.
In a well-reasoned opinion the Court below made an extensive and detailed analysis of the medical reports of the eleven physicians and determined that the record as a whole lacked substantial evidence to support the award.
The District Court’s analysis shows that nine of the eleven doctors concluded that Goins was in good physical condition, that his shoulder had healed, and that he could and should return to the work he was doing before the injury. Some of the reports indicated that although Goins apparently favored his right arm, he showed no difficulty in performing such tasks as removing his shirt. When he was conscious of his arm movements he acted as if he was in pain, but when he was not aware of his movements he was not affected by his injury. The Trial Judge found from the medical reports that all of the first six doctors who were provided by the employer, and who examined and treated Goins, were firmly of the opinion that there was nothing physically wrong with him. These doctors consisted of a general practitioner specializing in industrial medicine, two orthopedic surgeons, a neurosurgeon, another general practitioner, and a specialist in physiotherapy. Five physicians, recommended by Goins’ attorney, then examined claimant, and the Trial Court found from their reports that three of these doctors, an orthopedic surgeon, a neurosurgeon and a neuropsychiatrist, clearly supported the employer’s contention that there was nothing physically wrong with Goins. One of the doctors (the neuropsychiatrist), recommended by Goins’ attorney, suggested that Goins would be much better off if he were to return to his former employment and found that he is suffering from an emotional disturbance. He wrote, “The physical pain is necessary to prevent a more serious emotional disturbance.”
The two remaining doctors, a general surgeon and a non-board certified orthopedic surgeon, who were recommended by Goins’ attorney, submitted reports that told of pain and discomfort suffered by Goins after April 2, 1962, the date when the compensation payments ceased, but neither report contained definite statements that Goins could not or should not return to his. former employment. Of one of these the District Judge found that “A less concrete and conclusive report could hardly be imagined.” 226 F.Supp. at 924. As to the other medical report, the Trial Court said it was the only one which “presents any evidence that Goins was disabled subsequent to March 1962.” 266 F.Supp. at 924. But the Court found this report “completely at odds” with the other examining physicians, and held that this doctor’s use of “medical jargon * * * does not obscure the obvious fact that his report is nothing more than a collection of medical terms woven around the thread of the patient’s own statements about the nature of his accident and his persistent complaints.” 266 F.Supp. at 925. The Trial Court cited several Louisiana appellate decisions where the diagnoses of this physician have been criticized.
The scope of judicial review of the Deputy Commissioner’s findings of fact in a Longshoremen’s Act ease is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and this standard is that “the findings are to be accepted unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504, 508, 71 S.Ct. 470, 472, 95 L.Ed. 483 (1951), (citing Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Rel. Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951)). The review, however, is not to be a mere rubber-stamping of the Deputy Commissioner’s order when the reviewing Court is unable to conscientiously conclude that the evidence supporting such decision is substantial. N. L. R. B. v. O. A. Fuller Super Markets, Inc., 5 Cir., 1967, 374 F.2d 197.
In our view the Trial Court was able to evaluate the several medical reports, in the absence of personal appearances by all the physicians, as well as the Deputy Commissioner. His finding that the Deputy Commissioner’s order was not supported by substantial evidence is not clearly erroneous, and we believe it is correct. Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 52(a).
Affirmed.
. The District Court opinion is reported in 266 F.Supp. 917 (1967).
. See Smith v. W. Horace Williams Company, La.App., Orleans, 1956, 84 So.2d 223; Hall v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, La.App., 1 Cir., 1963, 153 So. 2d 553; Herbert v. American General Insurance Company, La.App., 4 Cir., 1963, 150 So.2d 627.
. See also O’Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Assocs., Inc., 380 U.S. 359, 85 S.Ct. 1012, 13 L.Ed.2d 895 (1965); Austin v. O’Keeffe, 5 Cir., 1967, 379 F.2d 930; Higgins, Inc. v. Donovan, 5 Cir., 1967, 373 F.2d 18; Alexander v. Leavey, 5 Cir., 1966, 370 F.2d 536; Vicknair v. Neuman, 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F.2d 832; O’Keeffe v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 5 Cir., 1964, 338 F.2d 319; Cunnyngham v. Donovan, 5 Cir., 1964, 328 F.2d 694.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0