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 "fiduciaries". 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:
THORNE et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 790.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 3, 1933.
John E. Haltigan, of Wichita, Kan., for the United States.
Before LEWIS and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges, and POLLOCK, District Judge.
POLLOCK, District Judge.
This is an action upon a $10,000 war risk insurance policy brought against the United States by the executor of the last will and testament of Clarence Henry Thome, deceased, and Mary E. Thome, beneficiary, under both the policy of insurance and the will.
By stipulation, the evidence on the trial was confined to the question of the total and permanent disability of the deceased at the time of his discharge from the army. At the close of the evidence, upon motion of the appellee, the court directed a verdict for the government. The appellants saved an exception.
The evidence disclosed the following facts: The insured enlisted in the military service on May 10, 1917, and was honorably discharged on May 3, 1919. The policy was issued while he was in the service, and in the agreed statement of facts it is said “the premiums thereon were paid up to and including July 2,1919.” The insured was sent to France in December, 1917. The medical record shows that he took a severe cold from, exposure after landing about January 10, 1918. He was confined in four hospitals from January 13, 1918, until March 9, 1918, during which time he had a bad cough, lost his voice, and was diagnosed as having laryngitis. His clinical record shows “tonsils somewhat enlarged; pharynx rather granular, translucent; cords very red, do not appromixate well; impairment over right apex;' definite impairment over right lower lobe behind; breath sounds and whisper voice sounds increased over right apex.” After he left the hospital he continued to have a cough which never left him, was listless, exhausted, weak, and coughed during the balance of his army service.
Four of his buddies in the army testified that the deceased had a severe cough when he came from the hospital which never left him while he was in the service; that he did not appear to be well, seemed to be sick and pale, and had a hacking cough. There was testimony that before he went into the army he was strong and robust. Following his discharge at Camp Devens, he took a month’s rest before engaging in clerical work, but continued coughing, looked thinner, occasionally spit up blood, had night sweats, and gradually declined in health until he collapsed about July, 1921.
He was employed as a clerk in a paper mill from June, 1919, to June, 1921, earning from $75 to $125 per month, but he had to lay off'two or three days a month to rest. He was ambitious, and his working conditions were favorable; the office being well lighted and well ventilated. In October, 1921, the doctors diagnosed his condition as tuberculosis in both lungs, and that he had no chance of recovery. He was advised to go to New Mexico, and did so. He became a bed patient there from the time of his arrival in the fall in 1921 until he died in the month of June, 1927, during which time he received excellent care and treatment.
Dr. John W. Gunn testified that he examined the insured in June, 1921, and diagnosed his disease as an advanced ease of pulmonary tuberculosis. It was his opinion, from the examination and history, that the disease had been running along two, three, or four years.
Dr. Theron G. Yeomans testified that he examined the insured in September, 1921, and his condition was such that he felt entirely sure he had tuberculosis when he left the army, and that his condition was such that he could not have performed labor of any kind at the time of his discharge.
Dr. L. S. Peters found him suffering- from advanced tuberculosis when he examined the insured in October, 1921. In answer to a hypothetical question ho said: “It is my opinion he had tuberculosis in 1918 when he manifested those indirect symptoms in the army and that he had tuberculosis in 1919 when he was discharged from the army.” He further testified that the fact that the insured worked for two years did not change his opinion. “That tuberculosis in its incipiency constitutes total and permanent disability; the very minute it is found it can be diagnosed he is totally disabled and shouldn’t work.”
Dr. J. A. Eeidy testified that he had examined the insured after he had come to New Mexico and found him suffering from advanced tuberculosis; that he thought he had tuberculosis of the lungs when he was examined in the army. “That laryngitis-tuberculosis is generally secondary from the lung condition, that he had tuberculosis first and then laryngitis following the chest condition.”
The Veterans’ Bureau record of the insured examined in September, 1921, in August, 1922, in March, 1923, and October, 1923, leave no doubt that he was permanently and totally disabled at the time of those examinations.
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the United States. The appellants had the burden of showing that the insured was permanently and totally disabled when the policy of insurance lapsed in the summer of 1919 for nonpayment of premiums. If there was some substantial proof of that condition, the appellants were entitled to have the ease submitted to the jury.
While the evidence is not conclusive, certainly there is some evidence that the insured had tuberculosis in its early stages at the time he was discharged from the army, and before his policy lapsed. The record discloses his' tubercular condition in January, 1918, resulting in laryngitis, the losing of the voice for two months, the impairment over the right apex of the lung, and a definite impairment over the right lobe behind. We then have a history of weakness, cough, spitting blood, and a generally run-down condition until he was discharged from the army. In September, 1921, two years later, he had far-advanced tuberculosis, and his condition was then such that every effort of medical science to arrest the condition was hopeless. While a doctor in 1921, without any past history, could not say with certainty, when the condition of tuberculosis developed, but an examination coupled with his condition in 1918, readily supports a diagnosis of a tubercular condition existing from January, 1918, on, as shown by the record in this ease.
We have then a tuberculosis preceding January, 1918, resulting in chronic laryngitis with a lung involvement at that time; we have it reaching the incurable stage in 1921. Three doctors testified that in their judgment when he was discharged from the army the disease had advanced to the stage where it was incurable, and this was borne out by the fact that the record from 1921 on to arrest the disease was fruitless.
In the light of these facts, there can be no question but that the verdict for the government was improperly directed. Bartee v. United States (C. C. A.) 60 F.(2d) 247; United States v. Lesher (C. C. A.) 59 F.(2d) 53; United States v. Stewart, 61 App. D. C. 115, 58 F.(2d) 520; Green v. United States (C. C. A.) 57 F.(2d) 9.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1