Opinion ID: 531244
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Marginal inaccuracy, if any, inherent in the test;

Text: 19 d. Unsubstantiated chain of custody of the urine sample from the time it is taken from the inmate to its analysis at LLC until the ultimate finding as documented in the report as given to the tested inmate; 20 e. Use of the uncorroborated test results as the sole basis for an institutional disciplinary write-up and disciplinary proceeding before the institution's adjustment committee; and 21 f. Refusal of the defendants to afford the inmates the right to call the diagnosing lab technician, other experts, or lay witnesses to testify at their disciplinary proceeding in opposition to the test report. 22 On April 19, 1984, the court entered an Agreed Order in the Kendrick and Thompson case which allowed for the payment of attorney's fees. The order stated that [t]hese fees shall be paid for all work done in this case unless this Court finds that the matters litigated are frivolous and totally unfounded. In the present case the only issue which arguably falls within the consent decree is the issue of whether the inmates may call the lab technician and cross-examine him concerning the lab results. This is only a miniscule part of the litigation conducted in this case. The focus of this case centered on whether urinalysis testing was proper. This has no relationship to the consent decree. Accordingly, the court finds that the issue of cross-examination of the lab technician is such a small element of this litigation that an award of attorney's fees under the consent decree would be improper and unjust. 23 Memorandum Opinion of February 18, 1988 at 3-5. 24 It is this order from which plaintiffs appeal.