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 "natural persons". 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:
Willis Lee JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee.
No. 77-1721.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 5, 1978.
Decided Oct. 17, 1978.
Deborah Garton Gibson, Bluefield, W. Va. (Hensley & Muth, Bluefield, W. Va., on brief), for appellant.
Phillip I. Morse, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (John A. Field, III, U. S. Atty., Charleston, W. Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
K. K. HALL, Circuit Judge:
Willis Lee Johnson appeals from an order of the district court affirming a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare that he was not entitled to “black lung” benefits sought pursuant to Part B of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended (the Act), 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Our scope of review is confined to ascertaining whether the Secretary’s denial was supported by “substantial evidence.” If such support exists, we must affirm. If not, we must reverse, 30 U.S.C. § 923(b), incorporating by reference § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see Laws v. Cele-brezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1968). In the instant case, we conclude that the Secretary failed to give proper consideration to certain evidence, and we must remand for further consideration.
There are three evidentiary items which were not given proper treatment:
1. X-ray of July 11, 1974;
2. Pulmonary function test of July 11, 1974;
3. Personal physical examinations.
First, the X-ray of July 11, 1974, was read as positive for pneumoconiosis by claimant’s physician, but was not reread by the Secretary. Although the Secretary makes reference to this film, he concludes that “the consensus of medical opinion is that the X-ray evidence does not establish the existence of pneumoconiosis' prior to July 1,1973.” Thus, the Secretary in effect ignored the film of July 11, 1974, and relied instead on other films which either had been read initially, or on rereading, as negative.
Congress has taken notice of the fact that negative X-rays are not conclusive indicators of the absence of pneumoconiosis. S.Rep.No.743, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in [1972] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 2314, 2316. It is therefore highly conceivable that although the films relied upon by the Secretary were negative, the July 11, 1974, films could have been a positive indicator of pneumoconiosis. At least, the claimant should get the benefit that proper consideration of all the evidence, including this film, would provide. 30 U.S.C. § 923(b).
Second, the pulmonary function test of July 11, 1974, administered by Dr. Frank T. Varney, rendered values which, if related back to June 30, 1973, could have qualified claimant for benefits under the interim regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 410.490(b). However, the Secretary discounted the results of this test on the basis of a report from Dr. Harold I. Passes which read in pertinent part:
I have further examined later reports . at which time an F.E.V.j value was recorded as 2.4 liters with an M.V.V. of 78 liters per minute, and I note that in the accompanying tracings there is no reproducibility of the study, and therefore, no conclusion can be made that the tests are valid or that they are reliable.
A review of the record, briefs and oral arguments does not reveal exactly what Dr. Passes meant by “reproducibility,” and how he came to this conclusion. Additionally, Dr. Varney did not reveal the calculations upon which he based his test findings for forced expiratory volume per second, one of the criteria measured in a pulmonary function test. On remand, Dr. Varney should be given the opportunity to explain specifically how he obtained the various values in the pulmonary function test, and if the experts who might review the test at the request of the Secretary do not concur in its validity, they should explain in detail, and not in conclusory terms, why the test is not valid.
Third, the record contains results of two personal physical examinations administered on October 30, 1972, and on November 7,1973. The first examination revealed some signs of respiratory impairment, as did the second examination. More importantly, Dr. M. S. Wells, who conducted the second examination, stated that plaintiff was suffering from a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, that plaintiff was disabled and unable to perform sustained work or to work in a dusty environment. Although the Secretary recognized that several physical examinations were conducted, he stated that “there is no evidence of a severe respiratory impairment.” This ' suggests that the Secretary may not have considered the report of Dr. Wells in contravention of his duty to consider all of the evidence as required by 30 U.S.C. § 923(b).
This case must be remanded to the Secretary for further consideration of the claim and with directions to properly consider all the evidence submitted by the claimant. Furthermore, although some of the evidence discussed in this opinion was obtained in tests conducted after the June 30, 1973, cutoff date, it is now well established in this circuit that the Secretary must consider post-cutoff date evidence and indicate the weight it is given. Talley v. Mathews, 550 F.2d 911 (4th Cir. 1977); Arnold v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 567 F.2d 258 (4th Cir. 1977).
REMANDED.
. The doctor’s report stated:
The percussion note was resonant over both lungs. Auscultation revealed an occasional coarse rale, most all of which disappeared following cough.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1