need for a very accurate chair a specially acquired piece of equipment not already planned present in the work places relevant to the identified jobs the vocational expert have been asked to consider in the hypothetical question and the r f c that an individual needs a very entertainer was also asked whether that is employers place providing very interesting two questions would be appropriate to pose to the vocational expert both are meaningful and the answers are not clear from this r one would be to eliminate the accommodation from hypothetical to remove the barrier chair and find out what the vocational expert thinks in that regard but then second to ask if there were how many employers that have a variant of the chair perhaps i think that it is a haps yes or no well not exactly because presume let's say we take normal chairs if an employer is expanding they may require some  don't argue that any acquisition of supplies expansion of an office building of new cubicles those are eighty eight compliance issues but a berry after chair is the word special it's the acquisition of equipment not normally found in th appropriate and then a subsequent written question at two seven zero is that definition of a chair and eighty eight accommodation answer yes and then another question  well then there was an explanation by the vocational expert that's a page two seven four that is two sentences long this would be an accommodation wherein the employer would need to acquire the berry after chair in my experience this is a common accommodation for an employer to make for an employee and what's wrong why is that something that didn't give a basis for the the complaint the answer didn't seem to state that the answer seemed to be that there are a lot of jobs where this kind of first i think we have presented sufficient evidence that the chairs are not profit especially considering that they're not prevalent missile secure but what evidence is that it's all security acknowledges that not even all of their is that the v e v e would be wrong as to players who have so few employees they're not subject to the the ves answers are sequential nine ten nine the answer is that there are three identified jobs with sighted dot codes and job incidents data this is page two seven four is sedentary cat exertional category and some other functional capacity so no discrepancies between this response and the doctor and then the sun the next answer i test is a discussion ve meant that the chair had to be acquired because of the a t m and i just i just you know there are there are a lot of the boy a lot of employers who aren't subject to kind of jobs we're talking about here might well be small and it's not in the record and i do not explicitly dependent on an eighty eight compliance step taken by him for the acquisition of it but if there are no for the questions they  the way the question the first question was phrased was a hypothetical that included plainness limitations including a barrier to chairs and she identified a significant number of jobs including the need for the chair and then in response to the follow up question which never used the words in the question just included the legal citation she said yes this is common and this is an accommodation it's common accommodation she didn't use terms like reasonable accommodation and she did not ever use a gauge or sight to that statue or those maybe that well i guess whether it happens frequently or not is beside the point i just haven't seen too many cases like that which is totally bizarre because your argument is instant in answer to the second snack or to your argument is that the and and the l j was trying to fully and fairly develop the record in sending along those additional questions and taking and following the hearing in the expert was considering the eighty a in her answers for and of course there was course for relief as i understand of the send back for from the development of the road position and this is an unusual case in terms of a social security disability case and few circuits have reached the issues on the two cases that are the most instructive are the jones case the circuit which the district court found and threes the more the situation that's more like this case where the occasional expert and that is nothing like what we have in this case where the book ational expert did not mention the eighty eight did not use the words reasonable accommodation and first answer the question hypothetical question that there are a significant number of jobs available for work or your church would be available  up the government argued that the cases are different in that there was no quoting of the eighty or citation to a j but the beating did say a day in the back whereas here he was asked to consider forty t