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 any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?" 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:
George T. WADE et al., Appellants, v. Oscar J. LANE, Appellee.
No. 16204.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 28, 1961.
Decided May 11, 1961.
Mr. Laurence T. Scott, Washington, D. C., with whom'Mr. Denver H. Graham, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Howard J. McGrath, Washington, D. C., submitted on the brief for appellee.
Before Wilbur K Miller, Chief Judge, and Edgerton and Prettyman, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
George T. Wade was an attendant in an ambulance which was struck by Lane’s car. He sued for damages, claiming to have sustained back injuries which for some time prevented him from operating his taxicab. His wife, Marguerite E. Wade, joined as plaintiff, suing for loss of consortium. The jury found for the appellee.
Appellant’s application for a “hacker’s license,” filed some months before the end of the alleged period of disability, which stated his physical fitness, was received in evidence against him. He concedes it was admissible, but contends, as the sole ground for reversal on appeal, that it was prejudicial error to receive in evidence the reverse side of his application, which was a certificate from his own physician that a physical examination revealed no disability. On the face of the application, appellant adopted the information shown on the reverse side.
We find no error.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3