Prison officials did not intentionally mislead judge on inmate psychiatric care, report finds

State corrections officials used flawed decision-making and produced inaccurate data on how frequently inmates receive psychiatric care but did not intentionally attempt to mislead a federal judge overseeing how prisoners are treated inside California’s prisons, a new report has found.

The 124-page report, filed in federal court in Sacramento Friday after a four-month investigation, stems from explosive allegations by the state prison system’s chief psychiatrist, who had alleged in a secret report he compiled that his employer was providing phony data to U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller.

In response to the claims by Dr. Michael Golding and similar allegations from another prison psychiatrist, Mueller issued a series of orders forbidding state officials from retribution against the whistleblowers and ordered an independent investigation.

That four-month probe by the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm, which was headed by former Sacramento U.S. Attorneys Charles Stevens and Ben Wagner, concluded that there are serious flaws in how some data are reported by prison officials but found that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was not intentionally engaging in “fraud upon the court.”

“We find that the evidence supports some of Dr. Golding’s allegations that CDCR’s data reporting practices resulted in the reporting of misleading data,” the report concludes. “Nonetheless, we also find that on each issue the evidence does not establish that CDCR intentionally misled the Court or the Special Master.”

Golding’s allegations led lawyers representing inmates to back away from a deal they were about to close with prison officials that would have allowed the state to reduce the number of psychiatrist positions in the prisons, a deal that was based on reports that the lawyers now say were inaccurate.

After nearly 30 years of court fights over the quality and amount of health care inmates receive, the allegations created a new sense of distrust by the inmate attorneys that may continue over what one called “life and death standards for our clients.”

“I’m still at the same point that I was before, in that I still need to have a much more heightened level of suspicion and distrust of information I’m getting from the state,” said Michael Bien, the lead attorney for the 30,000 inmates receiving psychiatric care. “We’ve been relying on a lot of information from the state to guide what we do.

“Now, we know we have to go back and re-verify that we understand what is being measured.”

Corrections officials hailed the findings as vindication.

“This administration is committed to providing inmates with quality mental health care that exceeds what the U.S. Constitution requires,” the department said in a statement. “The report largely tracks the explanation and evidence that CDCR filed with the court last fall.

“The court’s investigator – the Gibson Dunn law firm – confirmed that CDCR did not commit any fraud. We look forward to working with all parties to move forward and focus on providing quality mental health care for inmates, as delivered by our dedicated staff.”

The report concluded that none of the seven areas investigated – from how information is compiled to how the state counts the number of contacts between psychiatrists and inmates – produced evidence that officials were intentionally misleading the court.

As a result, the investigators recommended that Mueller not convene a special evidentiary hearing into the issue. But the probe, which included reviews of 12,000 documents and interviews with corrections officials, whistleblowers and others, did find fault with how the state makes decisions and compiles its data.

Golding’s 161-page report was filed on the court docket last fall and documented striking claims, including one instance where a psychotic inmate went without medication and eventually plucked out one of her eyeballs and swallowed it.

“CDCR has a broken system of care because information is not accurately reported upon, and reliable commonsensical action has not been taken,” Golding wrote. “I have documented that patients are not getting to appointments on schedule and in confidential spaces, that appropriate consultation is not occurring, and worse, appropriate medical decision making by psychiatric physicians has been overridden.

“I have documented that CDCR has prevented errors from being fixed, and worse, CDCR has not allowed anyone to know that there has been inaccurate reporting to the courts and to our leadership.”

Corrections officials had vigorously denied Golding’s allegations and opposed the appointment of the neutral investigators. But on Friday they filed court documents stating they did not oppose the release of the investigation. Golding’s attorney and attorneys for the inmates had argued that the full report should be released without redactions as soon as possible, and Mueller obliged them Friday afternoon.

The judge had given the investigators free rein to seek information from the highest levels of state government, and Bien said he was disappointed that they had not obtained information from the governor’s office.

“Because we have not had access to communications relating to the Governor’s office and litigation strategy due to Defendants’ privilege objections, we make no finding in that regard,” the investigators wrote.

Bien noted that the team could have asked the judge to intervene to allow them access to such information, but said “they apparently felt they got enough from their interviews and the documents they did review.”

This story was originally published May 3, 2019 at 4:03 PM.