Pollack and Vandehey noted that a purported construction of normal numbers given by Szüsz and Volkmann requires an additional condition. As we demonstrate, not only is this condition required in part of the proof of Szüsz and Volkmann's main result, but their original claim is false. We give an explicit counterexample via a decimal expansion that satisfies the conditions of Szüsz and Volkmann, but is not normal. This counterexample provides a non-normal analogue of the normal number 0.(1)(4)(9)(16)(25) ... considered by Besicovitch.