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:
W.T. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATES MARINE INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Central Gulf Lines, Inc., and Anchorage Tankship Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 88-3152.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 3, 1989.
Judy Guice, Paul T. Benton, Biloxi, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.
George R. Alvey, Jefferson R. Tillery, New Orleans, La., for Cent. Gulf Lines, Inc.
Clayton Ramsey, James B. Kemp, Stephanie W. Jumonville, New Orleans, La., for Anchorage Tankship Corp.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, TIMBERS and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.
Circuit Judge of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:
The district court rendered a summary judgment deciding that a ship engineer who seeks to recover for a hearing loss occasioned by repeated exposure to loud noises in engine rooms had a reasonable opportunity to discover that his disability was caused by this exposure before he consulted a doctor, and, therefore, that the statute of limitations on his causes of action against the vessels aboard which he had worked had begun to run. Because the determination of the factual question, whether he actually knew or had a reasonable opportunity to learn the cause of his hearing loss at least three years before he filed suit, remains in dispute, we reverse the summary judgment.
I.
W.T. Smith worked as an engineer aboard various Merchant Marine vessels intermittently from 1942 to 1966, and continuously from 1966 until his retirement in 1982. During the latter period, he sailed aboard vessels owned by Central Gulf Lines, Inc., States Marine International, Inc., and Anchorage Tankship Corporation.
According to the record now before us, while working in the engine rooms, Smith was exposed every day to noises so loud that he could communicate with fellow workers only in writing. He occasionally experienced temporary hearing loss while at work, but after several hours off duty, his hearing would return to normal; “[w]hen you get away from it, you settle down, it don’t bother you as bad,” Smith testified in deposition. Despite exposing their employees to such working conditions, the vessel owners never issued or made available any type of protective hearing device. Smith placed cotton in his ears from time to time, but only with reluctance, since it interfered with his ability to do his job.
Smith took an audiogram in 1969 as part of a regular physical exam, and it revealed no functional hearing impairment. In the mid-1970’s, when he was in his early fifties, Smith first noticed problems with his hearing: he often could not understand telephone conversations; his wife complained that he talked loudly and set the volume on the television excessively high; and his friends voiced similar complaints. Because he thought that his hearing problem was due to advancing age, Smith ignored the entreaties of his wife and friends to seek medical advice. His hearing was so poor by 1982, however, that he retired from work, and could no longer use a telephone or watch television enjoyably. In May, 1986, Smith sought medical attention for his hearing problem for the first time, consulting Dr. Jason Smith, an ear, nose, and throat specialist, who concluded that Smith had sustained 42% binaural hearing loss caused by repeated exposure to excessive noise.
On February 2, 1987, almost five years after he had last worked as an engineer, Smith sued States Marine, Central Gulf, and Anchorage Tankship for damage to his hearing, invoking the Jones Act and the general maritime law, each of which is governed by a three-year statute of limitations. The shipping companies moved for summary judgment on the ground that Smith’s causes of action were time-barred. The district court granted the companies’ motion, finding that “by the mid 1970’s, [Smith] possessed or had reasonable opportunity to discover the critical facts of his injury, ... [and Smith] knew or had reasonable opportunity to discover that the cause of his hearing problem was his exposure to loud noise.”
II.
Neither the historical facts of this case as set out above, nor the applicable legal standard as enunciated in Clay v. Union Carbide Corp. and Albertson v. T.J. Stevenson & Co., Inc. is in dispute. The only question is one of fact: whether Smith “possessed or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the critical facts of his injury and its cause” at least three years before he filed suit. If he did, the statute of limitations runs from that date and now precludes his suit.
When, on summary judgment, the parties contest inferences derived from undisputed historical facts, a “court must ... draw every reasonable inference in favor of the party opposing the motion ... for summary judgment.”
That Smith knew in the mid-1970’s that he was suffering significant hearing impairment is beyond genuine dispute. Smith challenges only the district court’s finding that he “knew or had reasonable opportunity to discover the cause of his hearing problem” at least three years before he filed suit (emphasis supplied). When he knew or should have known its cause depends on circumstantial evidence and inferences to be drawn by the trier of fact from the evidence proffered. Unless reasonable persons could conclude only that by 1984 Smith knew or had a reasonable opportunity to discover that repeated exposure to loud noises in engine rooms had caused his hearing loss, it was improper for the court to reach this conclusion on summary judgment.
III.
If we credit Smith’s affidavit, as we must at this stage, it is clear that he did not actually know the cause of his injury until he saw Dr. Smith in 1986.
None of my employers throughout my work history ever advised me that my exposure to noise might result in hearing loss, and I was totally unaware of this possible connection until being told by Dr. Smith in May 1986_ [Bjecause none of my employers had warned me that exposure to noises could cause permanent hearing loss, I had absolutely no idea that the hearing loss I experienced in the mid to late 70’s and thereafter was caused by exposure to noise. Instead, I thought that the problems I was having were caused by my increasing age. I now understand that that assumption was incorrect.
Summary judgment could not properly be rendered, therefore, unless Smith should have appreciated that his hearing loss was attributable to long-term exposure to loud noises. Dr. Smith’s affidavit, however, strongly suggests that this inference may be mistaken.
Noise induced hearing loss is a cumulative permanent loss of hearing that develops gradually over years of exposure to hazardous noise. This latent occupational disease involves a long, slow, progressive process that subtly wears away an individual’s hearing. Because of the cumulative nature of this disease, injury ... is not discernable at the time of exposure and it is virtually impossible to correlate the progression of the disease with specific exposures on specific dates.... [Not only would it] have been impossible for [Smith] to know of this injury at the time of his many exposures[, but bjecause of the progressive nature of this occupational disease, victims who have not been made aware of the correlation between noise exposure and hearing loss do not ordinarily attribute the loss of hearing to their exposure to noise, (emphasis supplied)
The shipping companies’ medical experts, otolaryngologist Dr. Ugenfritz and audiologist Dr. Walters, confirmed in their depositions that many patients with noise-induced hearing loss do not associate loud noises with hearing problems.
According to this uncontradicted medical testimony, Smith could have known of the cause of his injury only if he actually knew of the general correlation between noise exposure and hearing loss. There is, however, no evidence in the record from which to deduce this factual predicate. While Smith testified that he had experienced temporary hearing loss immediately after being exposed to loud noises, there is no evidence that he was aware in the 1970’s of the correlation between loud noises and permanent hearing impairment.
A jury might credit Smith’s testimony that, shortly after his fiftieth birthday, he thought his hearing loss was caused simply by the aging process, the “only ... illness [man] ... cannot find an escape from.”
In Clay v. Union Carbide Corp., the district court found that the victim knew or should have known of the cause of his injury; Clay experienced laryngitis, breathing difficulties, nausea, burning eyes, headaches, bronchitis, and dizziness, all observable maladies which, as he explicitly told his physician, he thought “were related to his work around chemicals.” In contrast, Smith’s hearing loss was a slow, progressive disability, and most significantly, there is no evidence that Smith attributed or even suspected that its cause was related to his time spent as an engineer.
In Albertson v. T.J. Stephenson & Co., Inc., the victim suffered severe physical and mental illnesses as a result of exposure to the chemical trichloroethylene (TCE). The court found that Albertson “knew TCE was a dangerous chemical requiring special precautions and that a label on some of the TCE canisters warned against prolonged use.” It is not apparent from the record that Smith had such knowledge or notice of the dangers of exposure to loud noise.
A trier of fact might reasonably conclude that Smith did not know the correlation between loud noise and hearing loss, or that Smith reasonably thought he knew already the cause of his ailment. The district court should not, therefore, have rendered a summary judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court granting summary judgment is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. 46 U.S.C. § 688.
. 45 U.S.C. §§ 56, 763(a).
. 828 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir.1987).
. 749 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.1984).
. Clay, 828 F.2d at 1107 (emphasis supplied).
. Murphy v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 628 F.2d 862, 866 (5th Cir.1980); Penton v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 699 F.2d 737, 741 (5th Cir.1983); Hodges v. Exxon Corp., 727 F.2d 450, 452 (5th Cir.1984); Galindo v. Precision American Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir.1985); Harbor Ins. Co. v. Trammell Crow Co., Inc., 854 F.2d 94, 98 (5th Cir.1988).
. Sophocles, Antigone (1954) (ed. D. Grene and R. Lattimore, transl. E. Wyckoff) Chorus at 171.
. Clay, 828 F.2d at 1105.
. Albertson, 749 F.2d at 226.

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