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 appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Clara HOLT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 89-6010.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 22, 1991.
Emily W. Lawyer, Tampa, Fla., Steve E. Moody, Moody & Jones, P.A., Plantation, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Dexter Lehtinen, U.S. Atty., Grisel Alon-so, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Mary Rice, Elyse S. Sharfman, Mary Ann Sloan, Mack A. Davis, Bruce R. Granger, U.S. Dept, of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Before KRAVITCH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Clara Holt appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the Secretary’s denial of disability benefits. She asserts that the Secretary did not give proper weight to her subjective complaints of pain and discomfort because he did not apply the correct legal standard to those claims. Holt also contends that the Secretary erred in finding that she was not disabled as a result of obesity and in not obtaining a medical expert to interpret the evidence of obesity that she presented. We reverse the Secretary’s determination regarding Holt’s subjective complaints and remand for the application of the proper standard. We affirm the Secretary’s remaining determinations.
BACKGROUND
Holt is 5'2" tall and has consistently weighed 315 pounds since 1981. She testified at the administrative hearing that she is unable to stand for more than one hour or walk more than one block without becoming short of breath. She also described discomfort if she sits for an extended period. In addition, Holt produced medical records that demonstrated a long history of hypertension and complaints of fatigue, dizziness and nervousness at various times.
Holt has not worked since 1981. She had previously held several light and sedentary jobs. She worked at a naval ordnance depot for seven years until about 1975. She then worked for the next three years as a seamstress making house slippers. The job required that she sit at a sewing machine all day, which caused swelling in her legs. Holt testified that by the end of the day her hands were numb and her feet “would feel like they were going to crack up and ... it hurt every time I walk on them.” She quit the seamstress job because of a dispute with the employer over the amount of time she spent away from her machine on bathroom breaks necessitated by her blood pressure medicine and exercising her legs to reduce swelling.
Holt also worked for two or three months in a turkey processing factory. The job required that she work standing up, which also caused Holt discomfort. She next tried a seamstress job making draperies, but found that prolonged periods of sitting caused the same problems as on the previous seamstress job. The new job also required lifting and pulling, which caused her arms to hurt.
Holt claimed disability from July 1, 1981, the alleged onset date, until March 31, 1984, the last day on which she met the disability earnings requirement. An ALJ denied the claim. He held that, while Holt’s physical condition prevented her from doing work that required exertion, it did not prevent her from returning to the kind of sedentary work that she had done as a seamstress. The ALJ found no evidence of any nonexertional impairment despite Holt’s testimony regarding the discomfort she experienced while working as a seamstress and turkey processor. He also determined that, under the regulations, Hold did not qualify for disability based on obesity, and he declined to obtain expert medical testimony on whether Holt met the requirements of the obesity regulations.
The Appeals Council affirmed the AU’s ruling, and Holt sought review in district court. The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and affirmed the AU’s determinations.
DISCUSSION
Holt contends that the district court erred in affirming the Secretary’s rejection of her disability claim because the AU did not give appropriate weight to her testimony regarding pain and other symptoms of her disability. We agree.
This court has established a three part “pain standard” that applies when a claimant attempts to establish disability through his or her own testimony of pain or other subjective symptoms. The pain standard requires (1) evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (2) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition or (3) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity that it can be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged pain. See Landry v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1551, 1553 (11th Cir.1986). The standard also applies to complaints of subjective conditions other than pain. Jackson v. Bowen, 873 F.2d 1111, 1114 (8th Cir.1989).
The claimant’s subjective testimony supported by medical evidence that satisfies the standard is itself sufficient to support a finding of disability. Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir.1987); MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050 (11th Cir.1986); Landry, 782 F.2d at 1152. If the AU decides not to credit such testimony, he must articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so. Hale, 831 F.2d at 1011. Failure to articulate the reasons for discrediting subjective pain testimony requires, as a matter of law, that the testimony be accepted as true. Cannon v. Bowen, 858 F.2d 1541, 1545 (11th Cir.1988); Hale, at 1054; MacGregor, 786 F.2d at 1054.
The decision by the AU contains no indication that he applied this standard. His findings contain only the bare conclusion that “the claimant is capable of undertaking a full range of sedentary and light exertion.... The undersigned has found no evidence of any nonexertional impairment....” He made no mention of the evidence of at least two underlying medical conditions—obesity and hypertension—that might have satisfied the first prong of the standard. One or both of these conditions could have given rise to the pain, swelling and fatigue of which Holt complained.
Neither did the AU make findings on whether Holt’s claims of pain and other subjective symptoms satisfied the second or third prongs of the pain standard. The findings contain no indication that he considered whether Holt’s claims were either confirmed by objective medical evidence or could reasonably have been expected to give rise to the pain alleged. In short, the AU did not apply the pain standard as is required by law.
It would have been within the AU’s discretion to determine, after listening to Holt’s testimony, that her claims of pain and other symptoms were not credible. See Landry, 782 F.2d at 1554 (AU’s factual determinations entitled to deference). But the AU’s discretionary power to determine the credibility of testimony is limited by his obligation to place on the record explicit and adequate reasons for rejecting that testimony. Cannon, at 1545. Thus, because the AU’s findings do not set out whether or for what reason he discredited Holt’s testimony, that testimony must be accepted as true. Id.
On remand the AU should determine whether, accepting her testimony as true, Holt has presented evidence sufficient to satisfy the elements of the pain standard and set out on the record his reasons for that conclusion. Moreover, under the circumstances, Holt and the Secretary should be given the opportunity to present additional evidence if they so desire.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
. Neither of Holt’s other arguments merits extended discussion. She did not establish that her condition met the detailed requirements for disability based on obesity set out in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 § 10.10. Nor did she show that a medical expert was needed to enable the ALJ to rule on her obesity claim.
. Holt’s medical records also contained some evidence of other possible underlying conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes and a knee injury.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0