section eight program counsel can i because we need to get to the the nub of it let me just tell you what my my concern is here your client got first of the clearly was part of section eight he got a one bedroom that he got it two bedroom now he seeks a third bedroom and the reason he says he needs is because he has exercise equipment that has been medically required and in the regulations  show that the third bedroom is reasonable and necessary he had two doctors who said he needed that but when i hacked i called them they said we really didn't say it was necessary he asked us to say that we think it might help him exercise more but it's not a requirement worse the controversy there he he if he doesn't medically need it why is he entitled to the regulation to  the declaration of the doctor saying no he misunderstood what i said because i did intend to say that he needed it but that didn't happen you know all the district court had was the representation that it wasn't necessary just it and the right and the written statements of his doctors are that he will not that he will improve if he gets as this exercise equipment because he needs to exercise from time to time during the day and yes your laws  where he was asked could he have used light dumbbells be an exercise regimen using absent using these three pieces of exercise equipment in the answer was yes he could have used that or perhaps other things elasti ovando muscle tone perhaps perhaps i misread it but i think i thought what they said was he he needs to exercise he suggested this particular equipment i don't see anything wrong with it but the point is we need to exercise you need to do that we're not sure that will help they didn't say he needed a third bedroom he said he needed it third bedroom he said he needed this particular equipment they did this specific clip and then doris the concept that you have articulated his muscles are atrophying he needs to exercise but as one of my colleagues asked what about dumbbells what about other things that could also help achieve as to what discrimination is ok you saying that they could have been wrong but it's not discriminatory or certainly the agency can make errors in judgment and that type of thing but here everything alleged was not due a disability but a requirement that able bodied as well as the disabled have to satisfy but there's a duty is to do a reasonable cause to for reasonable conversation exactly then that's you either do or you don't i don't think got an intent as i mean it's a there's no judge mine objective standard whether it was medically necessary was a reason accommodation with the i mean that's what we're struggling with here well but again if the rationale for action was based on something other than discrimination based on disability then what if you refuse to accommodate to his disability that is violative of the act that is that is making your judgment on the on the basis of disability you're treating him he's asking for the accommodation you're denying it isn't that discrimination believe that benefit before you get to some equipment to put in a bedroom pretty basic question right look at the application that he submitted that mr canal a first cut is pretty sparse it just says i need an extra bedroom to house always size medically necessary equipment says that's all it says at that point in time remember the context of here often how would this come about perhaps someone moves into the jurisdiction who had equipment and they would say accurately we now live here in response to this basic question i've got the equipment or plan to get the equipment he refused to respond he said i don't have to answer that question now we can do that that certainly is under reasonable the say very simple past here ruling he never never answered that basic fundamental question it wasn't a subjective test on our the can you show me where the district court well i think a that make any sense at all that we can issue this subsidize apart without something on those lines again it's not that we said we didn't believe his argument of that the loan program he had in mind didn't work he just refused to even address the issue let me ask you this council he he did get the doctors involved and they wrote and you all followed up on it if i recall the words correctly  despite what the doctor said send which basically endorsed the concept that he needed a third bedroom because of the equipment when they were contacted they each indicated that they encouraged him to exercise they thought maybe this would be helpful to get him to exercise but they had not specified any particular equipment that anything in that mine was entirely his his own decision is that correct that's correct they never saw the appellant to recognise that we could perhaps get correct answers and accommodate them differently would deny it for example if we determine that he didn't satisfy the quiet for this extra bedroom perhaps a quick mean that might be expensive that would fit in the one bedroom would help with his disability he denies the opportunity give this possible lesser benefit to him because he just took the position don't ask any questions and was it obvious once it was done offered to him did did did someone from hack  certifications are certainly weak for example part of that was based on hearsay that the doctor said mr ninjitsu told me that his physical therapist this would work now this is a certification february twenty fifth but on both doctors you can see the italics sizing and ball the going all the same is just kind of a form thing without a whole lot of thought to show that this is what you need this is a three bedroom unit member he's looking to in the and you don't just dispute anything in these certifications he just don't think it's sufficient is that yes if that's correct that's what even the part of it's wrong because the doctor later on indicated that he did suggest that we did it for the reason we state it that's not really discussed in the district court's order that clearly i think not because i think players took the position that contras sort of a case they skipped over that because it's an indefensible position you're  there's nothing to combat that he mentions in deposition a declaration someone made a nice infamous family but he never articulated that to happen that's on the record even his declaration that recess and i told him that this is something in