× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Paruresis Diagnosis Required for Justification of Urinalysis Noncompliance
Cruz was institutionally convicted of violating urinalysis testing procedures after his failure to produce a sample. After a three hour allotment for the sample's production he was given a misbehavior report. He initially claimed that an anti inflammatory drug, Indocin, was to blame for his involuntary non production. He later admitted that he urinated several times that day and inferred that paruresis was responsible for the failure to comply.
The third Division Appellate Department for the Supreme Court of New York held that the disciplinary determinations were appropriate because his paruresis claim lacked medical verification. See: Cruz v. Goord, 754 N.Y.S.2d 597, 302 A.D.2d 816 (N.Y. App. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Cruz v. Goord
|Cite||754 N.Y.S.2d 597, 302 A.D.2d 816 (N.Y. App. 2003)|
|Level||State Court of Appeals|