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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
U. S. HEALTH CLUB, INC. v. William MAJOR, Postmaster, Bergenfield, New Jersey, Appellant.
No. 13330.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued March 20, 1961.
Decided June 15, 1961.
Howard E. Shapiro, Washington, D. C. (William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Chester A. Weidenburner, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., Morton Hollander, Howard E. Shapiro, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Solomon H. Friend, New York City, (Bass & Friend, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
STALEY, Circuit Judge.
This appeal requires us to determine whether a Post Office Department judicial officer can make a final agency decision under § 8, 5 U.S.C. § 1007, of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and issue a fraud order although not qualified to act as a hearing officer under § 7, 5 U.S.C. § 1006 of the APA, and if so, whether the order issued here is supported by substantial evidence.
The Post Office Department instituted proceedings charging U. S. Health Club, Inc., appellee, with conducting a fraudulent enterprise through use of the mails in connection with the sale of two products called Super-Coronaid and Choless. These products contained certain unsaturated fatty acids, together with vitamins and other substances. In its advertising, appellee claimed that when used as directed these products would, by eliminating or substantially reducing formation of cholesterol deposits on the walls of blood vessels, prevent heart diseases and hardening of the arteries.
Based in large part on the testimony of Doctor Kenneth D. Campbell, a hearing examiner recommended, and a judicial officer ordered, issuance of a fraud order under the provisions of 39 U.S.C. §§ 259 and 732. Appellee commenced an action in the district court, contending, inter alia, that the order was not supported by substantial evidence, and requested injunctive relief. The United States, on behalf of the local postmaster, appellant, placed the administrative record in evidence and moved for summary judgment. The district court, construing Dr. Campbell’s testimony as an opinion on the efficacy of the two products, held, citing American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 1902, 187 U.S. 94, 23 S.Ct. 33, 47 L.Ed. 90, that the order was not supported by substantial evidence and enjoined enforcement. D.C.D.N.J.1960, 182 F.Supp. 759.
Two issues are raised by this appeaL First, to the appellee’s contention that, the fraud order was, in effect, a nullity because the judicial officer who made the final agency decision under § 8(a), 5 U.S.C. § 1007(a) of the APA, lacked the power to do so because he was not authorized to conduct hearings under § 7 (a), 5 U.S.C. § 1006(a) of the APA, the appellant asserts that the Postmaster General can delegate his power to make a final decision under § 8(a) to a judicial officer since such a function is different from conducting hearings and receiving evidence. This being so, the appellant further contends that enforcement of the fraud order should not be enjoined because there is more than substantial evidence in the record to support it. We agree with appellant on both points.
Section 7(a) governs who may preside at the taking of evidence by specifically limiting that function to (1) the agency; (2) one or more members thereof; or (3) a hearing examiner as provided for in § 11, 5 U.S.C. § 1010 of the APA. Our review of the legislative history of the APA makes it clear that one of its principal purposes was to limit the conduct of hearings and reception of evidence to specially qualified persons who were to be an essential part of the administrative adjudicatory process. They are given the power to make initial decisions which become the final agency decision unless reviewed by appeal to the agency or upon motion by the agency itself. § 8(a), 5 U.S.C. § 1007(a). Thus, it is seen that the hearing officer is the touchstone of the adjudicatory process, and the initial decision made by .him “which may dispose of the case or be the statement of it from which appeal may be taken to the heads [should] carry •a hallmark of fairness and capacity.” The APA attempts to make hearing officers semi-autonomous and not, as had been charged in the past, “mere tools of the agency concerned and subservient to ■the agency heads in making their proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” Ramspeck v. Federal Trial Examiners Conference, 1953, 345 U.S. 128, 131, 73 S.Ct. 570, 572, 97 L.Ed. 872. No such special status was contemplated for those who make the final agency decision. Section 8(a) permits a reviewing official to make a final decision based on the record made before and screened by an independent hearing officer. As is readily apparent, a final decision under § 8(a) is not, in any manner, similar to conducting a hearing. In addition, the plain words of that section do not require that the final decision be made only by those enumerated with particularity in § 7(a). The right of the Postmaster General to delegate his power to make a final decision is authorized by § 1(b) of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1949, 63 Stat. 1066, 14 Fed.Reg. 5225, 5 U.S.C.A. § 133z-15 note. Were it otherwise, the Postmaster General, the head of what has been described as the world’s largest business, would be called on daily to make a great number of final decisions under § 8(a).
Greene v. Kern, D.C.D.N.J.1959, 178 F.Supp. 201, and United States Bio-Genics Corp. v. Christenberry, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1959, 173 F.Supp. 645, affirmed 2 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 561, are on point and support our conclusion, while Borg-Johnson Electronics, Inc. v. Christenberry, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1959, 169 F.Supp. 746, cited by appellee, is inapposite for there the judicial officer sat as a hearing officer during the entire proceedings conducted under § 7.
Both parties agree, as indeed they must, that before a fraud order can be issued it must be found, first, that the claims made through use of the mails were false, and that such claims were made with intent to deceive. Further, such an order must be enforced so long as it is supported by substantial evidence. The parties part ways, however, as to the competency of Dr. Campbell’s testimony, which is the sole basis for the order, i. e., whether he testified as to what the consensus of medical opinion was concerning appellee’s claims or simply stated what his opinion was in this regard.
This is an area in which difficulty of proof frequently confronts law enforcement officials. Whether the claims made are false is usually a matter more susceptible of proof than establishing an intent to deceive. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in Reilly v. Pinkus, 1949, 338 U.S. 269, 276, 70 S.Ct. 110, 114, 94 L.Ed. 63, said: “An intent to deceive might be inferred from the universality of scientific belief that advertising representations are wholly unsupportable * * * ”
Dr. Campbell was a well qualified witness. Having previously served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force Medical Department, in 1946 he was employed by the United States Food and Drug Administration, and at the time of his testimony he was Associate Medical Director of Drugs and Devices, and was engaged in part time practice while serving on the staff of two hospitals. For approximately eight months before he testified, Dr. Campbell studied medical literature, including various reference materials and brochures concerning the use and effect of unsaturated fatty acid preparations. He also examined descriptions on the labels of bottles containing Super-Coronaid and Choless and familiarized himself with the effect in treatment of heart and arterial diseases of the various ingredients in those products.
Dr. Campbell testified that it was the consensus of informed medical opinion that appellee’s allegations concerning Super-Coronaid and Choless were false. He also indicated that the correlation between cholesterol levels in the blood stream and arterial diseases has not as yet been demonstrated or accepted by a consensus of expert medical opinion although some few experts do believe that it exists. Some medical experts believe that by altering diet so that small quantities of animal fat are ingested, and unsaturated fatty acids added to it, the blood cholesterol level may be reduced, thereby warding off heart and arterial diseases. But this was not the crucial part of his testimony. He went on to add that it is the universality of expert medical opinion that quantities of unsaturated fatty acids as small as those contained in Super-Coronaid and Choless would have no effect in preventing heart and arterial diseases. A daily dose of those products would give the taker only two or three grams of unsaturated fatty acids, which, all medical experts agree, would be totally ineffective. In addition, he testified that according to the consensus of medical opinion, the use of unsaturated fatty acids, without an accompanying revision in diet involving alteration of the over-all caloric fat intake, would be of no beneficial effect. This testimony clearly established, as a fact, the state of medical opinion respecting appellee’s claims, and it was not an expression of Dr. Campbell’s opinion on these matters, as the district court erroneously concluded. Owen Laboratories, Inc. v. Schroeder, 7 Cir., 1960, 284 F.2d 445.
A few words need be said about American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 1902, 187 U.S. 94, 23 S.Ct. 33, 47 L.Ed. 90, on which the district court relied. There, the allegedly false claims were based upon a belief that certain mental techniques could control physical illness. In its opinion, the Court made it clear that there were two conflicting schools of thought on the effect of the mind over disease, and that scientific knowledge had not as yet reached the point where any universality of opinion existed. Here, however, Dr. Campbell’s uncontradicted testimony established a universality of medical opinion on the crucial issues.
The judgment of the district court will be reversed and the cause remanded with directions that judgment be entered in favor of the appellant.
. 92 Cong.Rec. 2157, 5652, A-2984, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 1946.
. Eeport of tlie Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Procedure, S. Doc. No. 8, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 1941, pp. 43-44.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1