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:
Frances PARENTE, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee.
No. 737, Docket 83-6244.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Feb. 3, 1984.
Decided May 30, 1984.
Mark Hus, Community Action for Legal Services, Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Steven M. Bernstein, Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.
Michael P. DiRaimondo, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Raymond J. Dearie, U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Miles M. Tepper, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, OAKES and CAR-DAMONE, Circuit Judges.
OAKES, Circuit Judge:
Frances Párente appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Thomas C. Platt, Jr., Judge, which affirmed a determination by the appellee Secretary of Health and Human Services that Párente was no longer disabled, and hence no longer entitled to the Social Security disability benefits which appellant had received since the Secretary had first found her disabled in 1976. Based on our recent holding in De Leon v. Secretary, 734 F.2d 930 (2d Cir.1984), that “the Secretary may terminate [disability] benefits to a person previously adjudged to be disabled only upon substantial evidence that the individual’s condition has improved to the point that he or she is no longer disabled, or that the initial finding of disability was erroneous,” we reverse. It is abundantly clear from the administrative record that the Secretary made absolutely no determination that there was any improvement or even change in appellant’s physical or psychological condition, but merely conducted what amounted to a de novo hearing on the question of disability. Irrespective of the Secretary’s most recent determination, there can be no doubt that Párente has long suffered from serious physical and emotional disorders. In 1976 she applied for and was granted Social Security disability benefits due to “emotional and various physical problems.” Prior to 1976 appellant had been treated for an ovarian cyst. At the time the cyst was removed, appellant also had a pancreatic tumor removed, and a hysterectomy was performed. Appellant was, and continues to be, extremely obese; she is 5 feet 3 inches tall and weighs over 300 pounds, at one time being up to 347. She cannot lean over to pick up things. She has trouble breathing. She climbs stairs one by one. On September 8, 1981, she was hospitalized with a pleural effusion, possibly indicating heart difficulty. She has edema in her legs from her knees to her ankles, increased by standing. She is frequently nauseous and has ileitis.
But as the 1976 proceeding made clear, even more disabling than appellant’s physical ailments were her psychological and emotional problems. A social worker’s 1976 report in support of Parente’s application for benefits described her as having “a thought disorder, probably schizophrenia, paranoid type.” The social worker observed that Párente has “very few friends ____ In addition, her appearance is extremely poor, she is disheveled and unkempt. She suffers from paranoid ideation and loose association ____ Insight and judgment are poor____” Though she had worked from 1951 to 1970, appellant had been unemployed for six years when her application for benefits was granted in 1976. She has not worked since that time.
In October, 1981, the Social Security Administration notified appellant that, pursuant to its “Accelerated CDI (Continuing Disability Investigation) Program,” it intended to terminate her benefits. While recognizing appellant’s exogenous obesity, the appellee’s position, based on the examinations of a psychiatrist and an internist, was that “[t]he impairment does not meet or equal the level of severity described in the Listing of Impairments.” The appellee concluded that “[b]ased on the medical evidence [Párente] retains the capacity to perform simple, repetitive tasks,” and was thus no longer disabled.
It is very debatable whether there was substantial evidence on the record to support the ALJ’s finding that appellant is not disabled, an issue we need not reach but about which we have grave doubts, especially in light of his failure to discuss the opinion of her treating physician. Eche-varria v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 685 F.2d 751, 756 (2d Cir.1982). But it is clear that the AU made no effort whatsoever — other than to include some predictable boilerplate — to determine whether her condition had improved. We note, for example, that although the AU did recognize that the initial determination of disability was based on appellant’s “schizophrenia, paranoid type,” no evidence was even presented at the hearing that this condition or disability had been alleviated. In this area the AU relied on a psychiatric evaluation performed by a consulting psychiatrist “who reported a transient situational disturbance” and who, despite offering appellant “a good prognosis,” also recommended that she see a psychiatrist on a regular basis. The doctor did not address the question whether he believed appellant was suffering from schizophrenia, let alone offer any evidence of an improvement in her condition. While the doctor did indicate on a form that appellant’s impairments in various areas were “moderate” rather than “severe,” we note that he also stated that appellant’s capacity to “meet production, quality and attendance standards” was, based on his examination, “severely impaired.” We note also that the designation of a “moderate” impairment on the form provided the consultant psychiatrist— which the Secretary would have us believe is strong evidence of a lack of a disability— must be read in context of the range of choices provided to the doctor who is called upon to categorize an impairment: “None,” “Mild,” “Moderate,” “Severe.”
We need not repeat what we said in De Leon except to emphasize that first to classify a claimant as disabled and then draw precisely the opposite legal conclusion without substantial evidence of improvement violates not only the termination statute but basic considerations of fairness. As that is what we are confronted with in this ease, the decision below is reversed.
Judgment reversed.

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