Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
7806
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/11/2023 DIRECTING that Defendants shall maintain a maximum ten percent vacancy rate among recreation therapists and Defendants shall maintain a maximum ten percent vacancy rate among medi cal assistant positions allocated to the Statewide Mental Health Program. For purposes of the 2/28/2023 order, the calculation for recreation therapists and medical assistants will be made by multiplying the total number of allocated positions in each classification by 0.90, then subtracting the total number of filled positions from each result. (Perdue, C.)
Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7806 Filed 04/11/23 Page 1 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
More than five years ago, the court gave defendants one year to “take all steps necessary
18
to come into complete compliance with the staffing ratios in their 2009 Staffing Plan and the
19
maximum ten percent vacancy rate required by the court’s June 13, 2002 order.” October 10,
20
2017 Order, ECF No. 5711, at 30. Defendants did not come into compliance within the one year
21
deadline and remain out of compliance. In an effort to effect compliance, the court has ordered
22
fines to begin accumulating. See February 28, 2023 Order, ECF No. 7742, at 5-7. The court
23
directed defendants to report on the accumulation of monthly fines for vacant mental health staff
24
positions in monthly staff vacancy reports, beginning with the report due on March 31, 2023. Id.
25
The court had not previously “set a maximum vacancy rate for recreation[ ] therapists or medical
26
assistants, so it also directed the parties to “meet and confer and file a joint statement of their
27
respective positions on the maximum vacancy rate that should apply to recreation therapist and
28
medical assistant classifications.” Id. at 6–7. The parties have filed their joint statement. ECF
1
Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7806 Filed 04/11/23 Page 2 of 8
1
No. 7761. As explained below, this order confirms the same ten percent maximum vacancy rate
2
applies to recreation therapists and medical assistants.
3
I.
4
RECREATION THERAPISTS
Plaintiffs do not object to a ten percent vacancy rate for recreation therapists for purposes
5
of the court’s enforcing staffing orders. ECF No. 7761 at 2. Defendants agree the maximum
6
vacancy rate for recreation therapists should be set at ten percent. Id. at 7-8.
7
Although plaintiffs do not object to a ten percent rate for enforcement purposes, they note
8
their belief that the vacancy rate for recreation therapists is covered by an order the court
9
previously issued in 1999. See ECF No. 7761 at 2 (citing July 26, 1999 Order, ECF No. 1055).
10
That 1999 order required the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to
11
maintain vacancy rates in staffing categories other than psychiatrists and psychiatric social
12
workers “at present or comparable levels.” ECF No. 7761 at 2 (quoting July 26, 1999 Order at 4).
13
Plaintiffs cite evidence showing the vacancy rate for recreation therapists was four percent at that
14
time. Id. (citing Special Master’s Report on Staffing Vacancies, ECF No. 1032, at 3, 14).
15
The 1999 order did not perpetually cap the vacancy for recreation therapists at four
16
percent; rather it allowed different vacancy rates if those rates were “comparable” to the rate at
17
the time the order issued. ECF No. 1055 at 4. The court finds a ten percent vacancy rate is
18
“comparable” in context. Just four months before the court issued the 1999 order, the vacancy
19
rate had been 12.5 percent. ECF No. 1032 at 3. And in a report underlying the 1999 order, the
20
Special Master had used a ten percent vacancy rate as a guidepost for positions other than
21
psychiatrists and psychiatric social workers. See id. at, e.g., 3, 13-14.
22
For these reasons, defendants must maintain a maximum ten percent vacancy rate for
23
recreation therapists. The court’s 1999 order is clarified accordingly. For purposes of the
24
February 28, 2023 order, then, the court will calculate the number of unfilled recreation therapist
25
positions by multiplying the total number of allocated recreation therapist positions by 0.90, then
26
subtracting the total number of filled positions from that result.
2
Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7806 Filed 04/11/23 Page 3 of 8
1
II.
MEDICAL ASSISTANTS
2
A.
Positions of the Parties
3
Plaintiffs contend the vacancy rate for medical assistants should also be set at 10 percent.
4
ECF No. 7761 at 3. Defendants argue the court should not set a maximum vacancy rate for
5
medical assistants for several reasons. Id. at 9. They contend the medical assistant classification
6
is not part of the 2009 Staffing Plan and that allocation of medical assistant positions is not based
7
on the population of mentally ill inmates. Id. at 7, 13. They also argue medical assistants are
8
used almost exclusively as telepresenters for the telepsychiatry program, “are not allocated for
9
on-site psychiatrists” and are just one of many classifications that can be used for telepresenting.
10
Id. at 8. Similarly, defendants argue, because people in other classifications work as
11
telepresenters, “a Medical Assistant vacancy does not necessarily equate to an inability to provide
12
access to care” or “indicate that there are insufficient telepresenters available for telepsychiatry
13
contacts.” Id. at 9. Finally, defendants argue filled medical assistant positions do not necessarily
14
translate to telepsychiatry assignments. Id.
15
Plaintiffs argue defendants have “obfuscate[d] the key issues” rather than “responding to
16
the Court’s directive.” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs contend defendants’ position runs afoul of a 2015 court
17
order directing defendants to implement a specific proposal to create a psychiatric medical
18
assistant classification to assist on-site psychiatrists. Id. (citing May 18, 2015 Order, ECF No.
19
5307, at 6). Defendants contend their 2015 proposal “was never fully implemented” and claim
20
their use of medical assistants has “transitioned to telepresenting only.” Id. at 9. They also
21
contend their 2015 proposal “evolved over the last seven years into the current Medical Assistant
22
classification.” Id. at 10. Defendants request “additional time to develop a Medical Assistant
23
staffing plan and allocation that comports with the focus of their current duties, including an
24
appropriate maximum vacancy rate.” Id. at 13.
25
B.
Background
26
In June 2014, the court instructed defendants to “revisit and, as appropriate, revise” their
27
2009 Staffing Plan to resolve ongoing mental health staffing shortages and comply with the
28
maximum mental health staffing vacancy rates required by the court’s June 13, 2002 order, ECF
3
Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7806 Filed 04/11/23 Page 4 of 8
1
No. 1383. June 19, 2014 Order, ECF No. 5171, at 3-4. In response, defendants proposed a new
2
classification for psychiatric medical assistants (PMAs).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Under this proposal, CDCR will assign each psychiatrist a psychiatric medical
assistant—an unlicensed technician who will interface with custody and other
members of the treatment team. Psychiatric medical assistants will remind patients
of appointments, send out physician orders for labs or medication, schedule new
appointments, make referrals to therapists and other physicians, meet with the
patient prior to the appointment, collect relevant data, and take blood pressures and
measure weights. In addition, psychiatric medical assistants will help find treatment
rooms to meet patients and schedule with correctional staff to bring a patient to the
psychiatrist.
12
ECF No. 5269 at 7. The purposes of this new classification were to ease the administrative
13
burden on psychiatrists, improve recruitment and retention, increase the number of patients
14
CDCR psychiatrists could see, and increase their time treating patients. Id. The parties fully
15
briefed the issue. ECF Nos. 5279, 5281, 5286, 5290.
16
After review, the court directed defendants to “move forward” with their PMA proposal
17
and directed the Special Master to report on the status of defendants’ implementation of the
18
proposal. May 18, 2015 Order, ECF No. 5307, at 6. The Special Master made the required
19
report, and the court adopted it. See October 10, 2017 Order, ECF No. 5711, at 5 (discussing
20
inclusion of required report in Special Master’s Twenty-Sixth Round Monitoring Report and
21
court’s order thereon). The court then ordered the Special Master to “issue a stand-alone report
22
on the status of mental health staffing and implementation of defendants’ staffing plan.”
23
August 9, 2016 Order, ECF No. 5477, at 9. The Special Master reported defendants were making
24
“sufficient progress on their proposal related to the use of medical assistants” and, finding the use
25
of this classification “has the potential to positively impact the recruitment and retention of
26
psychiatrists” recommended that it “be implemented without further delay.” ECF No. 5564 at 10,
27
28. The parties filed extensive responses to this report, but neither objected to the
28
recommendation about the PMA classification. See ECF No. 5711 at 6, 8-10.
29
In the October 10, 2017 order, the court adopted a modified version of the Special
30
Master’s recommendation regarding the PMA program. Specifically, the court ordered
31
defendants to report to the Special Master “at such regular intervals as he may set” on the
4
Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7806 Filed 04/11/23 Page 5 of 8
1
implementation of the PMA program, among other proposals. Id. at 29. The court permitted
2
defendants to raise “with the Special Master the issue of whether full implementation of the PMA
3
program supports a change in staffing ratios for psychiatrists,” but the court required defendants
4
to timely raise and resolve any disputes within the one year deadline set by the order for
5
compliance with staffing requirements. Id. at 19, 30. Finally, the court required defendants to
6
develop a telepsychiatry addendum to the Revised Program Guide. Id. at 30.
7
C.
8
Defendants are required to meet their constitutional obligations to the plaintiff class,
9
Analysis
including with respect to adequate mental health staffing. See ECF Nos. 5307 at 5, 5711 at 12.
10
Although the court did not expressly order defendants to “fully implement” their 2015 PMA
11
proposal, it did order defendants to “move forward” with that proposal, ECF No. 5307 at 6, and to
12
keep the Special Master informed of its status along with defendants’ implementation of their
13
broader staffing plan, id. at 6; see also ECF No. 5477 at 8.
14
It now appears defendants have effectively abandoned their original PMA proposal
15
without informing the Special Master or the court. See ECF No. 7761 at 9. In defendants’ own
16
words, their plan has “evolved over the last seven years into the current medical assistant
17
classification,” and as a result, “Medical Assistants transitioned to telepresenting only.” Id. at 9-
18
10. Today, they say, medical assistants “are not allocated for on-site psychiatrists”; instead, “the
19
Medical Assistant Classification is based on telepsychiatry need.” Id. at 8, 12. Contrary to
20
defendants’ claims, they did not keep plaintiffs and the Special Master “aware of” this evolution.
21
Id. at 12. Their evidence shows only that the Special Master and plaintiffs were aware by early
22
2020 that defendants would use medical assistants as telepresenters for the new mental health
23
telepsychiatry policy. See ECF No. 7761 at 12, citing Special Master 26th through 29th Round
24
Monitoring Report and Ex. B to Decl. of Thorn Decl., ECF No. 7760-2. The record does not
25
support a conclusion defendants ever told plaintiffs, the Special Master, or the court they were
26
abandoning the 2015 PMA proposal. See ECF No. 7761 at 3 n.1.
27
/////
28
/////
5
Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7806 Filed 04/11/23 Page 6 of 8
1
In other words, defendants again have not been fully transparent with the court and
2
Special Master, as required. See generally Coleman v. Newsom, 424 F.Supp.3d 925 (E.D. Cal.
3
2019) (order after proceedings on first whistleblower report of misleading data submitted by
4
CDCR Chief Psychiatrist Michael Golding). It should not have to be repeated that, as a general
5
rule, “the importance of defendants’ transparent and accurate reporting is paramount: the court
6
and the Special Master must be able to rely fully on defendants’ representations.” Id. at 929. The
7
importance of transparent and accurate reporting applies fully to staffing levels. And the court
8
expressly outlined defendants’ obligations if they sought to modify their staffing plan:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Defendants simply must come to terms with the substance of the staffing plan and
involve all key stakeholders in working with the proper focus to satisfy it. If, after
addressing the problems [the Golding] hearings have exposed, defendants honestly
believe that their staffing plan, embodied in court orders, needs to be modified, they
have the option, as they always have had, of seeking a modification from the court.
Any such request would need to be properly justified and honestly supported, of
course. In any event, defendants must acknowledge and account for the substantial
findings in this court's October 11, 2017 order, describing the heavy burden that
must be met to support any increase in psychiatrists’ caseloads.
18
Id. at 957. Despite this directive, defendants unilaterally and opaquely changed an important
19
component of their 2015 plan to meet their staffing obligations. As a result, as the court moves
20
towards enforcement of the staffing plan it has approved, it will not hesitate to impose sanctions
21
and issue other orders as may prove necessary to bring the staffing component of the Coleman
22
remedy to the most just, speedy, and efficient conclusion possible.
23
In the meantime, defendants’ arguments are utterly unpersuasive on their own terms. As
24
plaintiffs correctly note, “[m]edical assistants . . . play a major role in Defendants’ telepsychiatry
25
program.” ECF No. 7761 at 4. The job description included as Attachment A to the Thorn
26
Declaration shows medical assistants play a greater role in the delivery of care through
27
telepsychiatry than telepresenting: they make and record initial observations of patients’
28
conditions and report that to the telepsychiatrist; they observe patients before and after
29
telepsychiatry appointments; they document clinical information in patient charts; they administer
30
life support in emergency situations; they collaborate with the telepsychiatrist to get appropriate
31
treatment to patients; they collaborate with nursing staff to meet the patients’ clinical needs; they
6
Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7806 Filed 04/11/23 Page 7 of 8
1
assist patients with physical care; they monitor patients on suicide watch until relief arrives; and
2
they contact local staff in the event of emergencies. ECF No. 7760-1 at 26. Indeed, medical
3
assistants appear to be the on-site partners of telepsychiatrists in many key respects. Id. Finally,
4
even if the medical assistant classification were used solely for administrative purposes—a
5
finding not supported by the evidence—clerical mental health positions are subject to the July 26,
6
1999 staffing order. See ECF No. 1052 at 3, 14 (Special Master’s report on staffing vacancies,
7
including clerical positions among “key mental health staffing positions and vacancies”); ECF
8
No. 1055 at 1, 4 (adopting recommendations in Special Master’s report on staffing vacancies).
9
For these reasons, defendants must maintain a maximum ten percent vacancy rate among
10
medical assistants allocated to the Statewide Mental Health Program. For purposes of the
11
February 28, 2023 order, the number of unfilled medical assistant positions will be calculated by
12
multiplying the total number of allocated medical assistant positions by 0.90, then subtracting the
13
total number of filled positions from that result.
14
III.
15
PSYCHIATRIC INPATIENT PROGRAMS
Plaintiffs also request the court clarify whether the court’s February 28, 2023 order covers
16
the mental health positions assigned to CDCR’s Psychiatric Inpatient Programs (PIPs). That
17
request was resolved in this court’s March 17, 2023 Order, which clarified the February 28, 2023
18
order does not apply to mental health positions assigned to the CDCR PIPs and required separate
19
vacancy/fill rate reporting for those classifications going forward. See generally March 17, 2023
20
Order, ECF No. 7766.
21
/////
22
/////
23
/////
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
7
Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7806 Filed 04/11/23 Page 8 of 8
1
2
IV.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
4
5
1.
Defendants shall maintain a maximum ten percent vacancy rate among
recreation therapists and the July 26, 1999 order, ECF No. 1055, is deemed
clarified accordingly.
6
7
8
2.
Defendants shall maintain a maximum ten percent vacancy rate among
medical assistant positions allocated to the Statewide Mental Health
Program.
9
10
11
12
3.
For purposes of the February 28, 2023 order, the calculation for recreation
therapists and medical assistants will be made by multiplying the total
number of allocated positions in each classification by 0.90, then
subtracting the total number of filled positions from each result.
13
DATED: April 11, 2023.
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?