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 first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous". Your task is to determine which of the following categories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
Elsie Mae Strother TURNER, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Her Minor Son, Jerry Jerome Turner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAY GEOPHYSICAL DIVISION OF MANDREL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Humble Oil & Refining Company & Union Oil Company of California, Defendants.
No. 71-2501
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 18, 1971.
Max Zelden, Zelden & Zelden, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Peter G. Burke, Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, New Orleans, La., for Ray Geophysical & Union Oil Co.
E. Burt Harris, New Orleans, La., for Humble Oil.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc., v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, 431 F.2d 409, Part I (5th Cir. 1970).
PER CURIAM:
Summary judgment was properly entered in favor of Ray Geophysical Division of Mandrel Industries, Inc. on the issue of tort immunity under the North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Act, based upon the unopposed affidavits and the certificate of compensation premium payment in evidence before the district court. Therefore, we do not reach the issue of prescription. Affirmed. See Local Rule 21.
. See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 430 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1970)

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous". Which of the following categories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
fiduciary, executor, or trustee
other
nature of the litigant not ascertained

Answer: 0