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:
Esther KOSBERG, Administratrix, Estate of Roberta Ann Clark, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER, INC., et al., Appellees.
No. 20792.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Feb. 15, 1968.
Decided April 18, 1968.
Mr. Philip Shinberg, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. John L. Laskey, Washington, D.C., for appellee, Washington Hospital Center.
Mr. Gerald W. Farquhar, Washington, D.C., for appellee, Klein.
Mr. J. Joseph Barse, Washington, D.C., for appellee, Rudnai.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Burger and Leventhal, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a wrongful death, malpractice action. Decedent was a newly married, 22-year-old girl whose medical problems began with symptoms suggestive of pregnancy. She was successively treated by a series of three doctors: a general practitioner, a psychiatrist, and an internist. The general practitioner, a defendant here, treated decedent for “morning sickness” and malnutrition and, when she did not improve significantly, referred her to the psychiatrist for treatment of a suspected emotional problem. The psychiatrist, also a defendant here, hospitalized decedent in defendant hospital and gave her electroshock therapy preceded and followed by administration of the drug thorazine. Decedent’s condition thereupon became critical, and Dr. Schulman, the internist, was called in. He ordered various drugs for decedent, but she failed to respond and died two days after receiving the electroshock therapy.
Dr. Schulman was plaintiff’s expert witness, and his opinion as to the cause of death differed in certain respects from the inferences arising during his cross-examination and from the testimony of Dr. Edmonds, the head of the hospital’s autopsy service. At the close of plaintiff’s case the trial judge directed verdicts for all three defendants. We affirm as to the hospital and the general practitioner but reverse as to the psychiatrist.
A prima facie ease of medical malpractice must normally consist of evidence which establishes the applicable standard of care, demonstrates that this standard has been violated, and develops a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of. Plaintiff’s case against the hospital is deficient on all three of these particulars, while her case against the general practitioner is devoid of evidence on the third essential — assuming, without deciding, that the first two factors were present.
Evidence of a standard of care and its violation was also lacking in the case against the psychiatrist. But plaintiff was prevented from supplying these essentials when the trial judge ruled that Dr. Schulman was not qualified to testify concerning electroshock therapy. We think this was error. The fact that an internist is not a specialist in psychiatry or neurology does not preclude him from testifying about the physical effects of electroshock therapy and the ability of a person in decedent’s condition to withstand this treatment. See Baer-man v. Reisinger, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 363 F.2d 309 (1966). Such testimony, if believed by the jury, might have established both the standard of care and its violation.
Moreover, on the third essential of plaintiff’s case against the psychiatrist — evidence of causation — we think there was sufficient proof in the present state of the record to go to the jury. Dr. Schulman testified that in his expert opinion the cause of death was the consecutive administration of thora-zine (a tranquilizer) and electroshock therapy to someone in decedent’s weak condition. Dr. Edmonds, who directed the autopsy, testified — in answer to questions by the judge — that in his view thorazine and electroshock standing alone would not have caused death, but that death was caused when this treatment was followed by administration of another drug, levophed, a combination that resulted in infarction of deceased’s bowels. Dr. Schulman contested that the levophed, which he himself had prescribed, contributed to death. Thus, there was a conflict in the testimony as to the cause of death. But conflicts in the testimony of witnesses, including expert witnesses, called by a party are not necessarily fatal to his case. The jury may assign a preference to one item of testimony over the other — a preference that may be based on differences in the hypothetical facts assumed by each expert and, in the last analysis, on depth and lucidity of expression.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for a new trial.
. Rodgers v. Lawson, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282, 170 F.2d 157, 158 (1948) (doctor); Garfield Memorial Hospital v. Marshall, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 239, 204 F.2d 721, 725, 37 A.L.R.2d 1270 (1953) (hospital).
. Agency principles are of no help to plaintiff in establishing liability, since there is no suggestion in the record that any of the doctors involved was an agent of either the hospital or another of the doctors.
. Later Dr. Schulman attributed the cause of death to electrolyte imbalance, depression, and phenothiazine reaction. Appel-lees have failed to demonstrate that this testimony on causation was so inconsistent with the earlier testimony of Dr. Schulman as to render the whole testimony inconclusive and require removal of the case from the jury. Compare Quick v. Thurston, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 290 F.2d 360, 88 A.L.R.2d 299 (1961) (en banc).
. It is by no means clear that Dr. Edmonds was invited to take into consideration what Dr. Schulman’s testimony assumed, namely, the already extreme condition of decedent at the time Dr. Schulman came on the case and prescribed levophed.
. See Diggs v. Lail, 201 Va. 871, 114 S.E.2d 743 (1960). Compare Mudano v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 289 Pa. 51, 137 A. 104 (1927). See generally Annot., 53 A.L.R.2d 1229 (1957).

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

Choices:

Answer: 1