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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant. Consider the following categories: "not ascertained", "poor + wards of state" (e.g., patients at state mental hospital; not prisoner unless specific indication that poor), "presumed poor" (e.g., migrant farm worker), "presumed wealthy" (e.g., high status job - like medical doctors, executives of corporations that are national in scope, professional athletes in the NBA or NFL; upper 1/5 of income bracket), "clear indication of wealth in opinion", "other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy" (e.g., public school teachers, federal government employees)." Note that "poor" means below the federal poverty line; e.g., welfare or food stamp recipients. There must be some specific indication in the opinion that you can point to before anyone is classified anything other than "not ascertained". Prisoners filing "pro se" were classified as poor, but litigants in civil cases who proceed pro se were not presumed to be poor. Wealth obtained from the crime at issue in a criminal case was not counted when determining the wealth of the criminal defendant (e.g., drug dealers).

Opinion:
John JOHNSTON and Kathryn Johnston, Appellants, v. Dr. Isadore RODIS, Appellee.
No. 14076.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 10, 1957.
Decided Jan. 23, 1958.
Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty, Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Mr. J. Joseph Barse, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. H. Mason Welch, J. Harry Welch and Arthur Y. Butler, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Edgerton, Chief Judge, and Prettyman and Bastían, Circuit Judges.
EDGERTON, Chief Judge.
The complaint makes the following allegations. The plaintiff Kathryn Johnston consulted the defendant Dr. Rodis for the purpose of obtaining certain treatments and “questioned” him concerning the treatments. He advised her “that the treatments as given by him were perfectly safe”. “Relying upon the statements” he made, she submitted herself to him for the treatments. On May 10, 1952, he commenced a treatment “and upon her regaining consciousness she learned that while under the direction, care and supervision of the defendant she sustained a fracture of her left arm.” Serious, permanent and painful injuries resulted.
The defendant’s answer says that because of the plaintiff’s condition he gave her electric shock therapy in accordance with the approved method and practice of physicians specializing in psychiatry. The answer denies that the defendant “advised the treatments were perfectly safe”.
Though the complaint does not say the defendant knew the treatments were not perfectly safe, the defendant says in a deposition that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the “convulsive seizure which ensued as a result of the electric shock treatment”; that in the defendant’s practice, about 5 or 6 or 7 fractures of the arm had been caused in this way; and that the “usual, the most common, are fractures of the vertebrae; that is, the backbone. * * * The long bones are next.”
The District Court gave summary judgment for the defendant and the plaintiffs appeal.
The plaintiffs relied at pretrial on res ipsa loquitur and breach of warranty. As the District Court said, the plaintiffs made no charge of specific negligence and did not propose to offer any evidence of negligence. We agree with the District Court that res ipsa loquitur does not apply. Doubtless a physician’s statement that he would cure a disease could seldom if ever be regarded as a warranty. But that is not this case. The statement attributed to the defendant, that shock treatments are “perfectly safe”, contains less of prediction and more of present fact. We think this statement, if the defendant made it and did not qualify it in any way, might properly be found to be a warranty. It follows that summary judgment should not have been granted.
Reversed.

Question: This question concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant?

Choices:
not ascertained
poor + wards of state
presumed poor
presumed wealthy
clear indication of wealth in opinion
other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy

Answer: 0