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 support the decision of an administrative law judge? 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".

Opinion:
Warren C. MAWHINNEY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 15397.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Dec. 16, 1965.
Decided Jan. 26, 1966.
William Pettit, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.
Mark S. Rothman, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D. C, (John B. Jones, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Ralph A. Muoio, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The Tax Court from the proofs in the case correctly found that less than one half of the support received by taxpayer’s son for the year 1959 was received from taxpayer. Under Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, in order for taxpayer to be entitled to claim his son as a dependent for the year 19.59, over half of the son’s support for that year had to have been received from the taxpayer. We find completely without merit the contentions of taxpayer (a) that the health insurance benefits received by the son under a medical insurance policy rather than the premium paid by taxpayer for the policy should be accepted as part of his support of the child and (b) that the support furnished the son by his mother and her sister and the latter’s husband prior to the mother being awarded custody of the boy by the state court should not be considered as part of the support furnished the son.
The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

Question: Did the court support the decision of an administrative law judge?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3