Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

COLEMAN v. BROWN, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC). (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170829776 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' PLAN TO REVIEW THE ENHANCED OUTPATIENT PROGRAM POPULATION KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . On February 6, 2017, the Coleman Special Master submitted his report on Defendants' 2017 Staffing Plan (2017 Staffing Plan). (ECF No. 5564 at 38-71.) In his report, the Special Master recommended that the Court reject Defendants' utilization-management plan to review its Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) inmates for appropriateness to continue in that level
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' PLAN TO REVIEW THE ENHANCED OUTPATIENT PROGRAM POPULATION

On February 6, 2017, the Coleman Special Master submitted his report on Defendants' 2017 Staffing Plan (2017 Staffing Plan). (ECF No. 5564 at 38-71.) In his report, the Special Master recommended that the Court reject Defendants' utilization-management plan to review its Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) inmates for appropriateness to continue in that level of care "[u]ntil such time as more information has been provided and the parties have had the opportunity to thoroughly vet the memo . . . to fully explore all options to ensure that all EOP inmates are being treated at the appropriate level of care." (ECF No. 5564 at 22.)

CDCR provided the Special Master and Plaintiffs' counsel a revised version of the Enhanced Outpatient Review memorandum (Memorandum) on March 29, 2017. (ECF 5591 at 8.) On April 21, 2017, Plaintiffs provided written comments to Defendants on the revised Memorandum. On April 26, 2017, the parties met and conferred under the supervision of the Special Master to refine the parameters of the review, including further revisions to the Memorandum. On May 26, 2017, Defendants provided the Special Master and Plaintiffs with further revisions to the Memorandum along with a form to guide clinicians in their reviews and data collection. Plaintiffs provided feedback to Defendants and discussed the revised Memorandum at an All Parties meeting on June 6, 2017. On June 12, 2017, Defendants provided the Special Master and Plaintiffs a final revised draft of the Memorandum that incorporated the Special Master and Plaintiffs' input, which was then finalized for distribution to all CDCR institutions on June 26, 2017. Exhibit A is a copy of the final distributed Memorandum.

CDCR implemented the EOP review on July 6, 2017, beginning at Mule Creek State Prison. The Special Master's team monitored the review process and Plaintiffs' counsel observed the process. The process included orientation and training for local clinical supervisors and staff clinicians in the use of a case-review tool. Staff then utilized the tool to review each patient at the Interdisciplinary Treatment Team meetings. CDCR completed its reviews at Mule Creek State Prison on July 27, 2017. Following this pilot, Defendants revised the data-collection form to improve it for future use.

Now that Defendants have refined and implemented a pilot run of the review process, the parties, with the concurrence of the Special Master, stipulate as follows:

1. The Defendants developed a supplemental utilization-management plan for EOP inmates that addressed the Special Master's concerns as articulated in his Staffing Report, and the parties are informed and believe that the Special Master no longer recommends that the Court reject Defendants' proposed EOP review.

2. Based on the above-described process, CDCR shall proceed to implement its EOP review under the June 26, 2017 Enhanced Outpatient Program Review Memorandum.

3. The parties will continue to meet and confer on the review process under the supervision of the Special Master, including developing a schedule to complete the EOP reviews.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

While noting that the court has yet to issue its order on the Special Master's Report on the 2017 Staffing Plan, the court finds the stipulation memorializing the results of the parties' efforts addressing one aspect of that report appropriate to approve at this time. As provided by the stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer