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 "state governments, their 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.

Opinion:
AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS and The Travelers Insurance Company, a corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James E. HAGEN, Guardian of James H. Hagen, and R. C. Enos, Deputy Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14300.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Feb. 4, 1964.
William H. Symmes, David Jacker, Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago, 111., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Frank E. McDonald, U. S. Atty., Chicago, 111., Morton Hollander, Edward Berlin, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and CASTLE, Circuit Judges.
SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.
American National Red Cross and The Travelers Insurance Company, a corporation, have appealed from an order of the district court granting the motion of James E. Hagen, guardian of James H. Hagen, and R. C. Enos, Deputy Commissioner, defendants, for summary judgment, denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and affirming the order and award of said Deputy Commissioner, which order was entered May 28, 1963. The action was brought under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq.
According to § 902(2), “injury” means “accidental injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment, and such occupational disease or infection as arises naturally out of such employment or as naturally or unavoidably results from such accidental injury * *
The record reveals that the Deputy Commissioner found substantially the following facts:
On November 6, 1960, and for some time prior thereto, James H. Hagen, hereinafter additionally referred to as “claimant” was in the employ of the American National Red Cross, assigned to duty with the troops stationed in Iwakune, Japan, when he suffered a mental breakdown diagnosed as acute schizophrenia reaction, paranoid type. . That illness .arose out of and in ,, . , . ,, , the course of the claimants employ- , ...... . , . ment and that the circumstances m- , . . , . ,, , . volved m the claimant s working .... . . .. ... conditions during the period imme- ,. ,, , . . . diately preceding the onset of his illness on November 6, 1960 were sufficient to create an abnormal stress, and trigger and precipitate his mental breakdown, diagnosed as acute schizophrenia reaction.
Thp rirnflitinn nf “nhnnrmnl stress” was the product of accumulated disturbances in the claimant’s work environment, which included: a conflict between the claimant and a navy chaplain with respect to responsibility for the delivery to servicemen of death messages; the fact that from “August 1, 1960 to October 1, 1960, the claimant herein had been required, because of his official superior’s illness, to take over the duties of his official superior in addition to his own duties; that during this period he was confronted with a difficult personnel problem which involved a matter of questionable conduct on the part of his secretary, necessitating her transfer and the training of an inexperienced replacement; that during the same period and prior to the appointment of a replacement for the official superior, the claimant was subject to caU twenty-four hours a day *
Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner concluded that, as a result of the illness suffered on November 6, 1960, the claimant was totally disabled from March 7, 1961 to September 19, 1962, inclusive, tor which period he was awarded $4,-335.43 (80% weeks at the rate of $54.00 Per week)' Further, the Deputy Corn-missioner found that the claimant has b?ea suffering from a temporary partial disability since September 20, 1962, which, having due regard for the nature o:f mJury, his physical impairment, hls usual employment, and his capacity earn wa®es in his disabled condition is equivalent to 50 per cent loss in earning capacity . Accordingly, the employer and its insurance carrier were addi- ,. ,, , , , ,, , „ tionaliy ordered to pay the lump sum of OOOJ- „„ , ,. , . $225.00 (representing temporary partial ,, , . , , . disability benefits that had accrued from „ i i. M , „ , , September 20, 1962, to October 31, 1962) ■, CA , . .. and $37.50 per week thereafter until otherwige ordered
case a* kar was instituted on November 23, 1962, resulting in the order from which this appeal has been taken,
Plaintiffs contend that an acute schizophrenia reaction is not a compensable ini'ury ™thin the meaning of the Longshoremen s Act, relying on Furlong v. O'Hearne, 144 F.Supp. 266 (Md.1956), affirmed, 4 Cir., 240 F.2d 958 (1957). However, the Deputy Commissioner relies on Travelers Ins. Co. v. Donovan, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 221 F.2d 886, 888. The court there said:
“ * * * Accordingly, absent substantial evidence to the contrary, a disability occurring in the course of employment ‘must be presumed to have arisen therefrom.’ * * * ”
Plaintiffs contend that the specific schizophrenia November 6, 1960 reaction of claimant did not arise out of and in the course of the claimant’s employment. Thus it is well to note that they do not dispute the fact that the claimant is suffering from an acute schizophrenia reaction.
Clearly the Deputy Commissioner did find that claimant suffered an acute schizophrenia reaction, paranoid type, which was triggered and precipitated by working conditions immediately preceding its onset and which “injury arose out of and in the course of employment”.
We find in the record evidence supporting that finding, consisting, inter alia,, of these facts:
(1) that from August 1955 through March 6, 1961, the claimant was in the employ of the American Red Cross;
(2) that on November 6, 1960, he suffered a mental breakdown diagnosed as acute schizophrenia reaction, paranoid type;
(3) that on that date, as he had been for the preceding twenty-one months, the claimant was assigned to duty with troops stationed overseas;
(4) that thereafter, he attempted to take his own life and it became necessary to institutionalize him, and
(5) that as of the date of the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner the claimant was still receiving psychiatric assistance on an outpatient basis and had not yet been gainfully employed.
From a detailed examination of the testimony of claimant, Red Cross Field Director Cecil Roberts, claimant’s father, mother and sister, as well as the medical testimony of his attending physician Dr. Richard 0. Heilman, who stated as his opinion that claimant’s work environment “did precipitate * * * the illness”, and whose opinion was that claimant would require further hospitalization and that “his prognosis in years to come would be just fair”, that claimant could not now earn a living and the likelihood of a complete recovery would be very unusual, we are required to conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the district court, with which we have no right to interfere. Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, 340 U.S. 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483.
In the light of those findings, we hold that the ruling applied in Travelers Ins. Co. v. Donovan, supra, is controlling here.
For these reasons the order of the district court from which this appeal was taken is affirmed.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0