State, plaintiffs, argue over psychiatrist’s credibility in prisoners mental health litigation

The opposing sides in a long-running case over prisoner mental health care attacked each other's credibility during a tense hearing Tuesday.

In particular, attorneys clashed over Dr. Michael Golding, the chief psychiatrist at the Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation. It was his 2018 whistleblower report that prompted the latest round of hearings in the case.

Arguing for the department, Roman M. Silberfeld took direct aim at Golding. He characterized him as a disagreeable colleague who made "baseless" and "reckless" personal attacks against coworkers.

"I think it is always important for the court to have the credibility of witnesses in mind," the national trial chair with Robins Kaplan LLP in Los Angeles told U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. "Dr. Golding fairly clearly has a both a bias and a personal agenda."

Coleman v. Newsom, 90CV00520 (E.D. Cal., filed April 23, 1990) has been underway for so long the main attorney arguing for the plaintiffs, Lisa A. Ells, was a teenager when it started. The partner with Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP in San Francisco used her time to paint a picture of a department using subterfuge to escape decades of court-ordered scrutiny. At particular issue was a period from 2016 to 2017 when the department's mental health coordinator, Dr. Laura Ceballos, changed the definition of a "monthly" visit from within 30 days to 45 days. Ells said this allowed the department to appear they were meeting court mandates and provided support for a bid to avoid hiring more mental health care staff. This attempt to mislead the court was so effective, she said, the department was getting close to being able to end the case and court supervision entirely.

"We were on the brink of agreeing to those drastic staffing reductions," Ells said. "This is exactly why Dr. Golding testified he submitted his whistleblower report."

Silberfeld said Golding secretively gathered information to use against coworkers rather than sharing it with others in the department who could use it to improve patient care. Professional rivalries between psychiatrists and psychologists also played a role, Silberfeld argued, in particular personal animus with Dr. David Leidner, a since-departed senior psychologist involved in the data operation.

"The fact that Dr. Leidner is gone from this system is a tremendous loss," Silberfeld said.

Ells went on to argue the change was among multiple "data choices" intending to show "compliance was better than it was."

"Additional remedies are needed to ensure defendants never again provide false and misleading information," Ells said. "Defendants have shown they do not take seriously this court's orders."

Ells said the data-gathering operation to ensure the department was complying with orders on mental health staffing and other metrics should be moved under the operations of the court-ordered receiver appointed in the case, but "not with the same people" who have been providing intentionally misleading data.

However, if there were problems in the department, Silberfeld said, they were corrected by the same people and processes the plaintiffs are now attacking.

"There was no intention to mislead this court," Silberfeld said. "No further action by this court is necessary."

On rebuttal, Ells said Golding "has been corroborated over and over and over again."

"What I've just heard confirms to me defendants do not recognize the need to be transparent," Ells said. "They take no responsibility."

Mueller then closed the hearing, taking the matter under submission.