A federal appeals court has overturned a lower court ruling and reinstated an Americans with Disabilities Act claim filed by paraplegic against a car dealership for refusing to install temporary vehicle hand controls for a test drive.

John Karczewski, who is paralyzed from the waist down, sought to test drive a car at San Diego-based DCH Mission Valley L.L.C., according to Monday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Diego in John Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley L.L.C.

He told the dealership he needed to have hand controls temporarily installed in the vehicle, but the dealership refused. Mr. Karczewski filed suit in U.S. District Court in Pasadena, California, charging violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Title III requires “reasonable modifications” when they are necessary “to afford goods, services facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations” to disabled individuals.

The District Court in Pasadena dismissed the claim, which a three-judge appellate court panel reinstated.

Noting this issue has led to divided opinions on the District Court level, the majority opinion described the dispute over how easily Mr. Karczewski’s request could be accommodated.

The defendant asserts that meeting Mr. Karczewski’s need would require purchasing hand controls, creating a training program for its mechanics, training them to install the controls and determining each customer’s ability to use them, among other measures.

Mr. Karczewski, however, alleges the hand controls are inexpensive, easy to obtain and can be installed “without much difficulty or expense,” said the opinion.

“For many car dealerships, the accommodation of installing temporary vehicle hand controls may prove to be unreasonably burdensome,” said the ruling.

“But we cannot conclude that the ADA categorically precludes a claim that a car dealership must provide hand controls for test drives, which necessarily would encompass situations in which the provision of hand controls would be reasonable,” says the opinion. It is likely reasonable, for example, at a large dealership when advance notice is given.

“Rather that interpreting the ADA never to require the provision of vehicle hand controls, no matter the situation, we conclude that it is more consistent with the text of the ADA, with the Act’s overall intent and with our case law to inquire into the underlying facts,” said the ruling, in reinstating the ADA claim and remanding the case for further proceedings.

A concurring opinion by the panel’s third judge was “dubitante,” a legal term that means he has doubt about an opinion but does not dissent.