# Starbucks pickup counters discriminating against disabled?



## mark handler (Jun 17, 2013)

Starbucks pickup counters discriminating against disabled?

Posted: Jun 17, 2013 10:47 AM PDT

Starbucks pickup counters discriminating against disabled? - KMSP-TV

by Lindsey LaBelle

LOS ANGELES -

Starbucks locations in California could be forced to lower all of their pickup counters in order to rectify alleged discrimination of individuals with disabilities.

United States District Court Judge Dean D. Pregerson ruled on Friday that a class action lawsuit filed against Starbucks Corporation may require lower pickup counters in all California stores with counters that exceed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) height requirement, alleging violations of the ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiffs contend that the higher counters, which are used to pass hot liquids, discriminate against disabled customers and pose safety risks. The ADA Accessibility Guide says a service counter cannot make the customer reach deeper than 20 inches, or higher than 44 inches.

According to the complaint, Starbucks has allegedly known about the problems with its counters since 2005, but "eight years later, hundreds of stores in California still have unlawful counters." Since then, Starbucks has supposedly continued to discriminate "against tens, if not, hundreds of thousands of disabled patrons in wheelchairs."

There are currently over 2,000 Starbucks locations in the state of California.

Vineet Dubey, the attorney representing the putative class action members, said, "It is an unfortunate reality that it often takes a class action lawsuit to force large-scale violators to address systematic abuses. We hope that Friday's ruling will expedite proceedings and ultimately force Starbucks to immediately lower the beverage pick-up counters at all of its coffee shops."

Starbucks allegedly created a common design for counter pieces that were made to fit in any store size in order to build stores quickly and inexpensively, and Starbucks uses these pieces in stores throughout the country. Starbucks contends the counter height issue did not result from a common design.


----------



## jar546 (Jun 17, 2013)

I am sure this problem exists all over the country.  Who passed the installations to begin with?  Let's start looking there first.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 17, 2013)

pickup counters TO THE LEFT

order counter TO THE RIGHT


----------



## Msradell (Jun 18, 2013)

Does the height of the order counter meet ADA requirements?  If so, why couldn't they just serve those with disabilities at that counter?


----------



## mark handler (Jun 18, 2013)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Does the height of the order counter meet ADA requirements?  If so, why couldn't they just serve those with disabilities at that counter?


The height of the "order counter" was not the issue, you need to provide the "same" service not special service to all.

the barista does not know it is a disabled person getting the order. He/She just calls out the name on the cup.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 18, 2013)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Does the height of the order counter meet ADA requirements?  If so, why couldn't they just serve those with disabilities at that counter?


But note all that "stuff" on the counter and in front of the counter, that is a violation of the clear space requirements.....  clear space does include "stuff"


----------



## mark handler (Jun 19, 2013)

Federal judge says ADA class action against Starbucks can proceed, include all Calif. stores

June 19, 2013 9:30 AM

Federal judge says ADA class action against Starbucks can proceed, include all Calif. stores | Legal Newsline

By JESSICA M. KARMASEK

LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) — A federal judge ruled last week that a class action lawsuit against coffee giant Starbucks Corp., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, may proceed.

Judge Dean Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California said in an order Friday that the lawsuit against Starbucks, which also alleges violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, also can include all California stores containing pickup counters in excess of the height permitted under the ADA.

The underlying class action was filed in May 2012, seeking to force Starbucks to lower the height of its pickup counters.

The complaint alleges that Starbucks has known about the problems with its counters since at least 2005, yet the company has continued to discriminate “against tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of disabled patrons in wheelchairs.”

In particular, the plaintiffs allege the higher counters discriminate against disabled customers and pose safety risks, since they are used to pass hot beverages, and sought to include all California stores in its lawsuit.

Starbucks countered that the plaintiffs only had standing to proceed against stores they had visited.

Pregerson rejected the company’s position, siding with the plaintiffs.

“It is an unfortunate reality that it often takes a class action lawsuit to force large-scale violators to address systematic abuses,” said Vineet Dubey, counsel representing the class members.

“We hope that Friday’s ruling will expedite proceedings and ultimately force Starbucks to immediately lower the beverage pick-up counters at all of its coffee shops.”

However, Starbucks President Cliff Burrows said in a video that the company already has taken steps to improve accessibility.

Specifically, he said the company has introduced a “lower-height hand-off plane” across the globe.

Dubey, in a statement Tuesday, said he was “surprised” to learn that Starbucks has introduced the lower hand-off counters.

The plaintiffs also claim that in order to build its stores more quickly and inexpensively, Starbucks created prefabricated modular pieces designed to adapt to any store size.

The company then used the pieces, including the high pickup counters, in stores throughout the country, they allege.

Starbucks has denied that the issue with the height of its pickup counters resulted from a common design.

From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by email at jessica@legalnewsline.com.


----------



## peach (Jun 20, 2013)

the pickup counter isn't an issue (or wasn't at final) at those that I've inspected.. the "stuff" can all be moved.


----------



## RJJ (Jun 20, 2013)

This movable stuff creates problem! The existing payment counter is obstructed. Are we responsible for inspections for ever?

The pick-up counter never was in compliance.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 20, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> This movable stuff creates problem! The existing payment counter is obstructed. Are we responsible for inspections for ever?The pick-up counter never was in compliance.


Are you responsible if someone blocks an exit door?

It is a code violation.


----------



## RJJ (Jun 20, 2013)

In PA they hold us up with L&I inspection on ADA issues. Every few years they conduct a witch hut.

To answer your ? no we are not held responsible for other code violations.


----------



## peach (Jun 20, 2013)

If they won't move the stuff, it becomes a civil rights lawsuit which isn't our problem.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 21, 2013)

Starbucks and the ADA – more perilous settlements and temporary victories

Starbucks and the ADA – more perilous settlements and temporary victories « Accessibility Defense

June 18, 2013

By Richard Hunt

Starbucks has a long history of litigation about the height of its pickup counters.  In 2003 Starbucks settled a claim by a California disabilities rights group concerning the height of its pickup counters. In 2011 Starbucks obtained the dismissal of another pickup counter height lawsuit, Chapman v. Starbucks, 2011 WL 66823 (E.D.Cal. 1022) based on mootness. The counter had been lowered to comply with the ADA requirements. In 2012 Starbucks settled a case that included counter height allegations in the Southern District of Florida. Access 4 All, Inc. v. Starbucks, Case No. 0:11-cv-61010 (S.D. Fla.). The settlement terms do not appear in the record, but most ADA settlements include remediation plus attorney’s fees, so it is a reasonable guess that Starbucks had to lower the counters in the 4 stores at issue. Just a few days ago, on June 5, 2013, a different District Court awarded Robert Cruz some $145,960.07 in attorney’s fees for his successful action against Starbucks concerning one Starbucks store. The Consent Decree in that case called for lowering the pickup counter. Cruz v. Starbucks Corporation, 2013 WL 2447862 (N.D. Cal. 2013) and see Docket 29-1 in the underlying case, 3:10-cv-01868.

Most recently, on June 14, 2013, a District Judge in the Central District of California granted an ADA plaintiff leave to amend to beef up allegations supporting a class action claim attacking the pickup counter height in all of the Starbucks stores in California. Vondersaar v. Starbucks, (Case No. 3:12-cv-5027 in the Central District of California) It remains to be seen whether the Plaintiff will be able to satisfy the District Court’s pleading concerns, but it also seems Starbucks has a long row to hoe before it can put the pickup counter height issue to rest. Even if it ultimately obtains a dismissal of the Vondersaar case, Starbucks will not have established any precedent with respect to counter heights, meaning that more lawsuits will be filed in the future.

These cases illustrate the difficulty and expense of handling ADA litigation without a long-term plan for ADA compliance. An early settlement or dismissal may resolve one case inexpensively, but since no legal precedent is set the next lawsuit may be just around the corner. If it isn’t possible to obtain an early dismissal, the costs of defense will mount at an extraordinary rate, particularly in class actions. ADA violations are like ticking time bombs waiting to go off, and the only sure way to avoid an explosion is to correct them before the next plaintiff comes along. Starbucks may have simply calculated that the delay in the expense of remediation it has obtained by waiting for lawsuits to trigger compliance is worth the cost of defending those lawsuits. Or perhaps it is busy remediating and just hasn’t had time since 2003 to finish the job. Regardless, the counter-height cases demonstrate once again why businesses hoping to avoid litigation should act pre-emptively to identify and correct ADA violations before the litigation bomb explodes.

The Vondersaar case also highlights a trend in ADA litigation. Vondersaar has not only alleged that the pickup counter heights violate the relevant design standards, he has also alleged that the design was part of a policy of discrimination in which Starbucks deliberately followed a common design that violates the ADA. This kind of policy discrimination claim can significantly expand the scope of a lawsuit. An individual plaintiff that visits an individual store has only suffered design based harm in that store, but he may have suffered a policy injury that would allow him to seek relief with respect to every similar store. It goes almost without saying that a written policy based on compliance with ADA standards and a plan for remediation is the best defense to a claim that the defendant has a policy of discrimination.

The message from the Starbucks pickup counter litigation is the same as the message from most significant ADA cases. The best defense is compliance, and the second best defense is a plan for compliance. This doesn’t mean giving up where there is a real issue on what can be achieved or what the ADA requires, but it does mean staying a step ahead of the plaintiffs and their lawyers when it comes to fixing compliance problems. A great defense team and a fortune in legal fees will never buy more than a temporary respite in the ADA litigation battle, while remediation buys a permanent peace.


----------



## peach (Jun 22, 2013)

Existing buildings (which they become after final inspections) are the reponsibility of someone other than the building department. (Blocked exits are the responsibility of fire inspectors during their annual inspections.. usually).  Unfortunately, most of the responsibility to report accessibility issues have to come from the disabled - and that's civil rights.

As inspectors, we enforce Chapter 11 of the IBC and the provisions of ANSI A117.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 22, 2013)

peach said:
			
		

> as inspectors, we enforce chapter 11 of the ibc and the provisions of ansi a117.


Ms PE

The clear space, is an ANSI A117, requirement.....


----------



## peach (Jun 22, 2013)

..and it needs to be clear at the final inspection; on going maintenance of the space may be a property maintenance issue, not a construction issue


----------



## mark handler (Jun 22, 2013)

And like any other building code violation, should be addressed, when spotted by a city inspector, a notice should be given.

In CA, when someone complains to the BO or a violation, the BD must investigate. though most of the time, CA residents file with the court


----------



## conarb (Jun 22, 2013)

Mark said:
			
		

> And like any other building code violation, should be addressed, when spotted by a city inspector, a notice should be given.


Mark:

Do you have a code section on that?


----------



## peach (Jun 22, 2013)

the only way I would ever see property maintenance violations is if I would go in for a cup of over priced coffee.  It might be the building department's job to enforce PM issues, not construction inspectors.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 23, 2013)

Part of the CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, roles and responsibilities of Building Departments and Staff


----------



## conarb (Jun 23, 2013)

Mark said:
			
		

> Part of the CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, roles and responsibilities of Building Departments and Staff


I've never seen that, could you post the section so I can research it?  For decades inspectors have ignored code violations because the illegal work was not covered by the permit.


----------



## kilitact (Jun 23, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> I've never seen that, could you post the section so I can research it?  For decades inspectors have ignored code violations because the illegal work was not covered by the permit.


I also would like to see this code section.


----------



## peach (Jun 23, 2013)

Then, mark h,  my guess is. .California Building Department Staffs have jobs for life.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 23, 2013)

It is in the CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.

I will need to get the section from one of my BO contacts tomorrow.

Building Staff in CA do not need a complaint or a "permit" to issue a citation. It is used all the time for building maintenance / code enforcement issues.


----------



## GCtony (Jun 24, 2013)

Once I saw a older disabled person in a chair at four bucks. The young man walked from behind the counter and served the person in the wheel chair.  What a concept, one person being nice to another. What's next a law requiring someone to hold a door for an elderly person or a man opening a door for a women or would it be a law not allowing an act of select kindness?  I guess it could be discrimination either way, depends on the lawyer.

BTW, I'm filling suit against Disney for letting those disabled people butt in line. Anyone want to join me?  I'm being discriminated against.


----------



## Darren Emery (Jun 25, 2013)

I was Starbucks for my afternoon shot yesterday, and noticed a new sign on the cash register.  ISA plus words to the effect of "for those who need assitance, we would be glad to serve you at your seat."  I'm in this store often, and pretty sure that sign was not there last week.


----------



## GCtony (Jun 25, 2013)

Darren,  I've also been seeing that more lately not only at starbucks.  I'm wondering if businesses are doing it in hopes of avoid the law suits since theres been a lot of press lately.


----------



## MtnArch (Jun 25, 2013)

Nice gesture but it does not negate the absence of compliance!


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 25, 2013)

I would just stop calling it a service counter. I would not call it any kind of counter. Possibly label it a "safety barrier", or "equipment screen".

Both in the interests of public safety, and sound mitigation.

Problem solved.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 25, 2013)

massdriver said:
			
		

> i would just stop calling it a service counter. I would not call it any kind of counter. Possibly label it a "safety barrier", or "equipment screen". Both in the interests of public safety, and sound mitigation. Problem solved. Brent.


just stop calling it a service counter does not change its function

if dogs are not allowed do you call your dog a cat....

Once again, you are trying to find a way to discriminate.

Its not a mater of what you call it it is about use and function

CBC 1122B.5 ...where counters have cash registers and are provided for

sales or distribution of goods or services to the public....


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 25, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> just stop calling it a service counter does not change its functionif dogs are not allowed do you call your dog a cat....
> 
> Once again, you are trying to find a way to discriminate.
> 
> ...


Sure it does. You have to think critically Mark.

It has to be available, by definition, by none, or by all. So If I were Star bucks I would simply say it is no longer a service counter. It is a means to shield the customers from the work area and machines used to prepare the coffee, and has nothing to do with the service of product to the consumer. If you look to the right you will see display cases that are taller still. They have the function of hygiene and display, but not service. That's not to say a Starbuck's employee has never handed me a  coffeecake over the top because of a crowded store. But don't give up hope because maybe you could sue her or me for discrimination or something.

So yea, I can change it's name and function.

You play your games, we'll play ours.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 25, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Sure it does. You have to think critically Mark.It has to be available, by definition, by none, or by all. So If I were Star bucks I would simply say it is no longer a service counter. It is a means to shield the customers from the work area and machines used to prepare the coffee, and has nothing to do with the service of product to the consumer. If you look to the right you will see display cases that are taller still. They have the function of hygiene and display, but not service. That's not to say a Starbuck's employee has never handed me a  coffeecake over the top because of a crowded store. But don't give up hope because maybe you could sue her or me for discrimination or something.
> 
> So yea, I can change it's name and function.
> 
> ...


First of all I do not sue anyone, nor do I assist those that do. I assist businesses and Govn't Agencies on how NOT to be sued.

Second It is not a game.

Third you must change the function for all or they will be sued.

It is not a game.

You do not know me, nor what I do, nor my background.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 25, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> First of all I do not sue anyone, nor do I assist those that do. I assist businesses and Govn't Agencies on how NOT to be sued.*Good. That makes me happy.*
> 
> Second It is not a game.
> 
> ...


Oh, it's a game. A serious one that costs people money.

Or should I say MAKES people money?

And background is important. Would you like to share to lend validity to your views? No threat from me, I'm just a not-quite-yet-failed contractor/naildriver from the school of hard knocks, but I have a penchant for learning and do not view ignorance as a virtue, like margaritas, and long walks on the beach.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 25, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Oh, it's a game. A serious one that costs people money.Or should I say MAKES people money?
> 
> And background is important. Would you like to share to lend validity to your views? No threat from me, I'm just a not-quite-yet-failed contractor/naildriver from the school of hard knocks, but I have a penchant for learning and do not view ignorance as a virtue, like margaritas, and long walks on the beach. Brent.


You see it as a game, that is why you will always be on the losing end.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 25, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> You see it as a game, that is why you will always be on the losing end.


Maybe the losing end, but the right end.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 25, 2013)

The end.   .


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 25, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> The end.   .


By the way, we were good on post #30 until the butthurted derail.

So, to reformat my opinion into a question, what prevents the reclassification of an architectural element to comply with the ADA requirement? Reflect on the display cases. If they were to be called service counters they would not pass muster, but since there is no expectation of that with the fixture there is no complaint. I suspect the whole problem is that small raised wafer above the cabinet. I am going to assume just for argument the cabinet itself is compliant, and could be used to serve customers their products. So in the interests of making the day equally difficult on everybody to spare any discrimination, including handing someone their drink directly around the corner, I simply put a bunch of Starbucks crap on that shelf for display, pass drinks over to the left of the machine, (the new service area) and I should be compliant. Unless you are saying someone else gets to dictate where and what the service area is.

Brent.


----------



## Darren Emery (Aug 26, 2013)

Brent - you seem to be working very hard to find a way to "get around" compliance.  You said in an earlier post that you have a penchant for learning.  Have you spent some time studying the intent of the ADA?  It's worth your time.

I as well have no tolerance for those who use the ADA as a tool simply for making money. And I understand that our world will never be as easy to navigate and function for those with a disablitly.  However - when a feature can be built in a manner that would serve those with a disablity as well as those without (like a service counter at a lower height) it should be done.  Ignorance of the requirment is not a valid excuse. Finding a way to get around the requirement is not an honarable solution.

Starbucks is a high-quality operation in many ways.  I hope they step up and do the right thing.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 26, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Brent - you seem to be *working very hard to find a way to "get around" compliance*.  You said in an earlier post that you have a penchant for learning.  Have you spent some time studying the intent of the ADA?  It's worth your time. I as well have no tolerance for those who use the ADA as a tool simply for making money. And I understand that our world will never be as easy to navigate and function for those with a disablitly.  However - when a feature can be built in a manner that would serve those with a disablity as well as those without (like a service counter at a lower height) it should be done.  Ignorance of the requirment is not a valid excuse. Finding a way to get around the requirement is not an honarable solution.
> 
> Starbucks is a high-quality operation in many ways.  I hope they step up and do the right thing.


I tend to see that a lot when people let their personal beliefs get in the way of performing their job correctly.  I also see that with inspectors that want to be everyone's friend and don't have the spine to do their job.  In both cases, they need to in a different career as it does nothing but cause discourse within our profession.  I always tell my inspectors "You have to stop thinking like a contractor and start thinking like an inspector."


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 26, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I always tell my inspectors "You have to stop thinking like a contractor and start thinking like an inspector."


At which point their head evaporates and their hat falls onto their collar.

......I'm kidding.

Let me try a different tack.

There is a group of people that are looking for any marginal thing, in this case a "service counter". Without that counter everything functions normally, product can be passed, and everything can proceed normally and without discrimination whatsoever. So to save Starbucks money and effort, just don't use it as a service counter. It's not unethical or trying to skirt the rules. It just means its there. Benign. Nobody gets to use it so its non discriminatory. Simple as that.

Brent.


----------



## JPohling (Aug 26, 2013)

WOW!  You continue to focus your time and efforts on how to circumvent the requirement to provide equal access rather than using that critical thinking to develop a solution.  This is precisely why people need to file lawsuits to obtain compliance.  Your thinking is severely flawed and promotes the behavior that you detest.


----------



## north star (Aug 26, 2013)

*= = =*

Without that designated "Service Counter", ...that reduced function & perception

of "serving their customers" could effect their bottom line......To my simple mind,

it seems easier, ...more politically acceptable, ...more ADA acceptable, ...more

corporately acceptable to install a compliant "Service Counter", ...a win-win

application, rather than relabeling an area that is intended to serve their

customers in the first place.

*& = = &*


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 26, 2013)

The "tip jar" is alway's positioned on the service counter so everyone can reach it!

No issues with that accessability!

pc1


----------



## JPohling (Aug 26, 2013)

actually the tip jar is typically another one of those items that is cluttering up the countertop at the register along with gift card selections, cd's and other odds n ends that impact the ability to use this area as an accessible counter.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 26, 2013)

The barrier free requirements are written into the code in Canada for a reason. It's a lot easier if I can sit down with someone building and explain and go through the barrier free requirements. They don't feel like they are getting the railroad treatment and they are usually more than happy to do something to expand their potential clientèle. Currently in my province approximately 10% of people have some sort of disability. That's a lot of people to deny service to before you even open your doors.

The basis behind these laws is so people can be treated equally. I have disabled family members who have a hard enough time getting around as it is. The last thing we should be doing is putting up barriers for them to try to navigate. As for stepping out around the counter to serve a client, I see that as the employee making the best of a bad situation (and good on them). Many individuals who are disabled become self-conscious when they have to be treated differently from those of us who have been very lucky.

Every business I have helped by going over the barrier free requirements have commented that they see people who are disabled in their stores and restaurants often and receive positive comments from them and family members about how nice it is to be able to navigate and be treated like a normal person. The first day I heard a business comment on that it was the happiest and saddest I have been a long time. I was happy because I had made such a difference in those peoples lives. It was the saddest because I realized how far we have left to go.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 26, 2013)

> However, Starbucks President Cliff Burrows said in a video that the company already has taken steps to improve accessibility.Specifically, he said the company has introduced a “lower-height hand-off plane” across the globe.
> 
> Dubey, in a statement Tuesday, said he was “surprised” to learn that Starbucks has introduced the lower hand-off counters.


Our Starbucks was built in 2006 and I went in there today and the lower hand off counter is still there and usable.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 28, 2013)

Starbucks Can't Wipe Out ADA Suit Over High Counters

By Kat Greene

Law360, Los Angeles (August 27, 2013, 6:36 PM ET) -- Starbucks Corp. on Monday lost all but a portion of a motion to dismiss a putative class action in California federal court accusing the coffee behemoth of violating the Americans With Disabilities Act with counters in its stores that are too high for a person in a wheelchair to reach.

U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson is allowing the class, led by four quadriplegics, to pursue its claims against Starbucks stores built before 2005, when the company changed its policy about the counter design,

Starbucks Can't Wipe Out ADA Suit Over High Counters - Law360


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 28, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson is allowing the class, led by four quadrapegics


So. I had think awhile to make sure I wanted to ask this, cause I know nobody wants our disabled questioned in any way.

But ima gonna do it.

Are not quadrapelegics arms and legs paralized? How do they reach a counter of any size? How do they reach anything? What difference could counter height make to them? I totally would understand this for someone who lost the use of their legs, but a quad? I think we are back to an employee handing... I guess... Or placing a drink into holder, with a straw.

Befuddling.

Awaiting educational refinement.

Brent.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 28, 2013)

The condition is termed _tetraplegia or __quadriplegia. Both terms mean "paralysis of four limbs"; tetraplegia is more commonly used in Europe than in the US. In 1991, when the American Spinal Cord Injury Classification system was revised, it was recommended that the term tetraplegia be used to improve consistency ("tetra", like "plegia", has a Greek root, whereas "quadra" has a Latin root)._

 A common misconception with Tetraplegia is that the victim cannot move legs, arms or any of the major function; this is often not the case. Some tetraplegic individuals can walk and use their hands, as though they did not have a spinal cord injury, while others may use wheelchairs and they can still have function of their arms and mild finger movement, again, that varies on the spinal cord damage.

It is common to have movement in limbs, such as the ability to move the arms but not the hands or to be able to use the fingers but not to the same extent, as before the injury. Furthermore, the deficit in the limbs may not be the same on both sides of the body; either left or right side may be more affected, depending on the location of the lesion on the spinal cord.


----------

