Med Mal News

The State of California argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 30, 2010, that it should not be required to reduce its prison population by 40,000 simply because the quality of health care provided to inmates is less than optimal. The case, Schwarzenegger v. Plata, pits the State against plaintiffs who filed an action in 1990 claiming prisoners received substandard mental health care, and another filed in 2001 saying general health care for all inmates in California is so poor that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Courts throughout California have, through the years, weighed in on both cases, and a special master and receiver were appointed to address the issues raised. Ultimately, a three-judge panel was convened in accordance with the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. In 2009 the panel found that the constitutional violations could largely be blamed on prison overcrowding, and it ordered the State to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of capacity within two years. (California's prisons are currently filled to 200% of maximum capacity.) Questioning of the State of California's counsel, Carter Phillips, a partner in Sidley Austin, suggested the Court was not sympathetic to the State's fiscal woes. For instance, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noting that the mental health class action had been ongoing for 20 years and had been the subject of 70 court orders, asked, “How much longer do we have to wait [for adequate prisoner mental health care]? Another 20 years?”