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 "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:
Earl Q. MORSE and Mrs. Earl Q. Morse, Appellants, v. Dr. Frederic A. MORETTI and Doctors Hospital, Inc., Appellees.
No. 20826.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 30, 1967.
Decided Jan. 25, 1968.
Mr. Dale L. Button, Bethesda, Md., for appellants.
Mr. John L. Laskey, Washington, D. C., for appellee Doctors Hospital.
Mr. Walter J. Murphy, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. John L. Ridge, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Moretti.
Before Edgerton, Senior Circuit Judge, and McGowan and Leventhal, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice suit appeal from a judgment based on a directed verdict for the defendants. They say the case should have gone to the jury.
Appellants are husband and wife. While the husband was a patient in Doctors Hospital, one of the appellees, the other appellee, Dr. Moretti, removed a cataract from his right eye and after-wards performed a similar operation on his left eye. A urinary infection developed in the left eye, further surgery was necessary, and as a result the eye is sightless.
The evidence must be construed most favorably to the appellants. Goodwin v. Hertzberg, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 385, 201 F.2d 204 (1952). So construed, it would support a finding that both appellees were negligent. But this is not enough. In a suit for personal injuries the plaintiff must prove that negligence caused the injury. Since the appellants produced no significant evidence on this point, the court did not err in directing a verdict.
The judge stated his reasons for directing a verdict, which is commendable. But we suggest that judges may well consider submitting some cases to the jury even though they would set aside a verdict for the plaintiffs. “Where the trial court has any doubt as to whether to grant the motion for a directed verdict, the better practice is for the judge not to direct a verdict but to reserve decision and let the jury bring in a verdict, * * *” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 50.05 [3], The jury might return a verdict for the defendants. Furthermore, if a verdict for the plaintiff were erroneously set aside, the appellate court could merely reinstate it and a new trial would be unnecessary. See Shewmaker v. Capital Transit Co., 79 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 143 F.2d 142 (1944); Williams v. Greenblatt, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 335, 272 F.2d 564 (1959).
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first 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