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:
SMART v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4691.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 1953.
Paul Dudley, Oklahoma City, Okl. (J. B. Dudley, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
Benjamin Forman, Washington, D. C. (Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert E. Shelton, U. S. Atty., B. Andrew Potter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., Paul A. Sweeney, Attorney, Department of Justice, and T. S. L. Perl-man, Attorney, Department of Justice, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN and PICKETT, United States Circuit Judges.
HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.
This was an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained by appellant at the hands of one Ralph Edward Dungan, a mentally incompetent veteran, shortly after his release from a Veterans’ Administration Hospital at Marion, Indiana, on a trial visit to his home. The appeal is from the judgment of the trial court entering a summary judgment of dismissal.
The complaint so far as material in substance alleged that the Government’s agents and employees in charge of the hospital were negligent in releasing Dun-gan from custody and that such negligence was the proximate cause of appellant’s injuries.
The undisputed facts are these. Dun-gan was admitted to the veterans’ hospital as a mental patient. Under treatment his condition improved. In a few months he was quartered in an open building and allowed the freedom of the grounds. On May 2, 1951, his physicians, after a staff conference, recommended his release on a 90 day trial visit to his home. Before his release became effective, his condition changed and he became violent and was transferred from an open building to a ward. When his proposed visit was cancelled, the staff advised his parents of his relapse and that he would be unable to come home on a trial visit.
By August 8,1951, he had improved to the extent that he was allowed ground privileges. On October 14, 1951, the veteran’s father wrote, requesting his release and stating that a job would be waiting for him in Phoenix, Arizona. By reply the authorities advised that his condition had improved and that a trial visit would be arranged. The father executed and returned to the hospital a Veterans’ Administration Form 2832, formalizing his request for a trial visit, assuming responsibility for the patient’s care, treatment and conduct while in his custody, and agreeing to return him to the hospital at the end of the visit. Upon execution of this form, Dungan was released, given $141.23, and sent unaccompanied on a 90 day trial visit to his home in Phoenix, Arizona. While on the journey there, he stole an automobile in Oklahoma City and, while driving recklessly, injured appellant.
The liability of the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act has béen stated in many decisions and it is not necessary to set out the statute in detail here. It is sufficient to say in general that the Government will be liable for the negligent or wrongful act of its employees, if a private person would be liable for similar acts by its or his employees, with certain exceptions, among which is that the Government will not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance, or the failure to exercise or perform, a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved was abused.
The pertinent regulations dealing with the duties and responsibilities of hospital authorities with respect to trial visits of mentally incompetent patients are R & PR 6159 and R & PR 6167. Regulation 6159 provides that when a request is made for the release of a psychotic patient not held under commitment he will be released, if mentally competent at the time, but if he is not mentally competent, he may be permitted a trial visit, if such is adjudged advisable. Regulation 6167(d) (1) provides that trial visits are to be encouraged. If the patient is found to be competent, he is entitled to be released. If he is not competent, then he is entitled to be released for such a visit if in the judgment of the hospital authorities it is deemed advisable. Whether such visits shall be permitted, when requested, of necessity involves the exercise of judgment and discretion. Before granting the request, it is necessary for the hospital authorities to consider the, patient’s case and determine whether in their judgment such a visit might be beneficial to him and whether authority therefor could be granted with safety to the public.
In United States v. Gray, 10 Cir., 199 F.2d 239, we held that the determination whether a wife of a veteran was to be admitted to a hospital involved the exercise of discretion. By analogy the determination whether a veteran shall be released for a trial visit likewise involves the exercise of discretion.
Appellant contends that, assuming that the decision to release Dungan involved discretion, the Government’s agents were negligent in the manner in which they carried out his release, by failing to make full disclosure of his condition to the party who was to assume control of him while out on a trial visit. The record is clear that the hospital authorities fully advised Dungan’s parents as to their conclusions with respect to his condition and gave it as their opinion that he could be released safely for the trial visit. Whether the patient could be safely released and permitted to go on his way without an attendant likewise involved the exercise of discretion.
We think the judgment of the trial court and the reasons assigned therefor are correct and it is, therefore,
Affirmed.
. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346 et seq.

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