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 "private business and its executives". 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:
Paul F. RIDGLEY, Respondent, v. CERES, INC., Great Lakes Storage and Contracting Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.
No. 78-1149.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 1979.
Decided Feb. 26, 1979.
Arnold W. Larson of Donovan & Harper, Duluth, Minn., filed brief, for petitioners.
James J. Courtney, III of Courtney, Gruesen & Petersen, Duluth, Minn., filed brief, for respondent, Ridgley.
Mary A. Sheehan, Atty., U.S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D.C., Carin Ann Clauss, Sol. of Labor, Laurie M. Streeter, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C., on brief, for respondent, Director, Office of Workers’ Comp.
Before LAY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
LAY, Circuit Judge.
This is a petition to review an order of the Benefits Review Board, United States Department of Labor, affirming a decision of an administrative law judge ordering Great Lakes Storage and Contracting Co. (Great Lakes) to pay Paul F. Ridgley compensation benefits for permanent disability pursuant to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901 — 950. The AU initially denied Ridgley’s claim against Great Lakes on the ground that Ridgley had failed to establish a connection between his July 1970 employment accident and the injury to his left knee. The Board reversed the denial of the claim, holding that the burden was on Great Lakes to overcome the presumption of a causal connection between Ridgley’s employment accident and his disability and that Great Lakes had failed to meet its burden of proof. Upon remand, the ALJ ordered Great Lakes to pay Ridgley compensation for permanent total disability for his knee injury. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s order and this petition followed.
In its petition for review Great Lakes makes three contentions. First it contends the ALJ’s initial decision denying Ridgley’s claim was supported by substantial evidence and the Board erred in reversing that decision. Second, Great Lakes contends that the evidence does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Ridgley is permanently totally disabled. Finally, and alternatively, Great Lakes contends that if Ridgley’s injury is compensable, the liability limitation in 33 U.S.C. § 908(f)(1) applies, since Ridgley had a previous disability. We affirm the decision of the Board.
Great Lakes’ first two contentions merit little comment. Ridgley was injured on July 10, 1970, in the course of his employment as a longshoreman with Great Lakes in Duluth, Minnesota. He was loading equipment aboard a vessel when the boom swung out of control and threw him down, injuring his back, left hip, and left knee. Following his July 1970 injury Ridgley was treated by Dr. William Atmore, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Atmore periodically treated Ridgley for his knee from October 1970 through April 1973, during which time the possibility of surgery to replace the knee was contemplated. Ridgley continued working, however, until June 27, 1973, when he sustained an injury to his left hand. While Ridgley was hospitalized for this hand injury, surgery was also performed for the previously contemplated knee replacement. More than a year later, when the knee surgery had completely healed, Dr. Atmore concluded that Ridgley could not perform heavy manual labor involving climbing, squatting or heavy lifting. He has not returned to work since the June 1973 injury to his hand.
The Board reversed the ALJ’s initial decision denying Ridgley’s claim on the grounds that Great Lakes had not overcome the presumption of a causal connection between Ridgley’s employment accident and his disability. Section 20 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 920, establishes a presumption that a claim for compensation comes within the provisions of the Act. The presumption controls unless sufficient proof is offered to rebut it. Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U.S. 280, 286, 56 S.Ct. 190, 80 L.Ed. 229 (1935); In re District of Columbia Workmen’s Compensation Act, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 216, 222, 554 F.2d 1075, 1081, cert. denied sub nom. J. Frank Kelly, Inc. v. Swinton, 429 U.S. 820, 97 S.Ct. 67, 50 L.Ed.2d 81 (1976); St. Louis Shipbuilding Co. v. Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 551 F.2d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 1977).
Great. Lakes contends that it overcame the presumption with proof that in 1944 Ridgley had sustained a knee injury which caused an arthritic condition present at the time of the 1970 injury and it was this arthritic condition which ultimately led to the total knee replacement surgety, rather than the July 1970 injury. After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the Board that Great Lakes did not offer sufficient proof to rebut the presumption that Ridgley’s claim came within the provisions of the Act. Dr. Atmore, Ridgley’s treating physician, opined that the July 1970 injury was the proximate cause of the surgery resulting in a knee replacement. Great Lakes offered no testimony to the contrary. Dr. Atmore did testify that had Ridgley not suffered the 1944 injury he would not have required the knee replacement. That does not detract, however, from the compensability of Ridgley’s present knee condition. A work related aggravation of a preexisting condition is compensable. Wheatley v. Adler, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 177, 182, 407 F.2d 307, 312 (1968).
Great Lakes next contends that Ridgley was not permanently totally disabled as a result of his 1970 injury. This contention also lacks merit. The ALJ found that Ridgley was unable to be gainfully employed as a result of the July 1970 injury, citing the employer’s failure to show that Ridgley had an actual opportunity to obtain light work. We find substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding. Ridgley testified that he was unable to work. Dr. Atmore testified that Ridgley could no longer perform the strenuous work required by his employment as a longshoreman. Furthermore, the record contains no evidence that Ridgley could perform other work. See American Stevedores, Inc. v. Salzano, 538 F.2d 933, 935-36 (2d Cir. 1976).
Finally, Great Lakes contends that its liability for compensation should be limited by § 8(f)(1) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 908(f)(1). That section, often referred to as the “second injury” or “special fund” provision, limits an employer’s liability for an employee’s injury which of itself would cause only a permanent partial disability but which, because of a preexisting disability, causes a permanent total disability. In order to trigger application of the statute an employee must have a “previous disability.”
Initially we maintain serious doubt whether Ridgley’s arthritis is a “previous disability” within the meaning of the statute. The phrase “previous disability” is to be given a normal meaning, Lawson v. Suwannee Fruit & Steamship Co., 336 U.S. 198, 201, 69 S.Ct. 503, 93 L.Ed. 611 (1949), and ordinarily a pathological or traumatic condition which has not become manifest until a subsequent accident is not viewed as a prior disability. National Homeopathic Hospital Association v. Britton, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 309, 314, 147 F.2d 561, 566, cert. denied, 325 U.S. 857, 65 S.Ct. 1185, 89 L.Ed. 1977 (1945) (Groner, C. J., dissenting). This view is consistent with the statute’s obvious purpose, which is to encourage the hiring of handicapped workmen and protect employers who do so. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. v. United States Department of Labor, 553 F.2d 1144, 1151 (8th Cir. 1977). We need not determine whether Ridgley’s arthritic condition is a “previous disability,” however, because the record contains no evidence indicating that Ridgley’s arthritic knee was manifest.
In Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co., supra, we adopted the “latent-manifest” test for determining whether an employer will receive the benefit of the special fund provision. Since Great Lakes offered no evidence, and we find none in the record, indicating that Ridgley’s arthritic condition was manifest, Great Lakes does not qualify for the limited liability provision of 33 U.S.C. § 908(f)(1).
The Board’s order is affirmed.
. The ALJ concluded that Ridgley’s knee replacement resulted from degenerative arthritis which had developed subsequent to a leg fracture Ridgley suffered in 1944.
. At this time he was employed by Ceres, Inc.
. 33 U.S.C. § 920 provides in pertinent part:
■ In any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary—
(a) That the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter.
. At the time of Ridgley’s injury Section 8(f)(1) read:
(f) Injury increasing disability: (1) If an employee receive an injury which of itself would only cause permanent partial disability but which combined with a previous disability, does in fact cause permanent total disability, the employer shall provide compensation only for the disability caused by the subsequent injury: Provided, however, That in addition to compensation for such permanent partial disability, and after the cessation of the payments for the prescribed period of weeks, the employee shall be paid the remainder of the compensation that would be due for permanent total disability. Such additional compensation shall be paid out of the special fund established in section 944 of this title.
33 U.S.C. § 908(f)(1) (amended 1972).
. Varying interpretations of the phrase “previous disability” have been adopted. Compare American Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jones, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 269, 272, 426 F.2d 1263, 1266 (1970) with Equitable Equipment Co. v. Hardy, 558 F.2d 1192, 1197-98 (5th Cir. 1977) and Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 542 F.2d 602, 608-09 (3d Cir. 1976).

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 3