A federal appellate court on Friday rejected the Schwarzenegger administration's attempt to rid itself of the court-appointed receiver charged with bringing prison medical care up to a constitutional standard.

The record of the protracted class action lawsuit supports the trial judge's ruling that, contrary to the administration's argument, appointment of a receiver goes "no further than necessary to correct the constitutional violations, and was the least intrusive means," a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared.

"The state to this day has not pointed to any evidence that it could remedy its constitutional violations in the absence of the receivership," the judges said.

The panel also shot down the argument by the governor and his corrections boss that the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act allows for a court-appointed special master and thus, by implication, prohibits a receiver.

The act's special master provisions "neither apply to nor prohibit the district court's appointment of a receiver," the judges said in a 20-page opinion.

After concluding that "if the system is not dramatically overhauled, (an) unconscionable degree of suffering and death is sure to continue," San Francisco U. S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson appointed a receiver in February 2006. He said prison health care was so bad it violated the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The judge conferred on the receiver all the powers of the secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with respect to the delivery of inmate medical care, and suspended the secretary's powers in that area.

Despite the unprecedented scope and dimension of the receivership, the state neither objected to nor appealed the order at the time.

But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Corrections Secretary Matthew Cate wearied of butting heads with the receiver - law professor J. Clark Kelso - over money, and last year asked Henderson to replace Kelso with a special master, but the judge refused and the administration appealed.

Legally, a special master would be limited to assisting in the development of remedial plans.

"The problem has not been with a lack of plans, but with the state's inability to execute them," the appellate panel said. "The district court did not err in ruling that a special master could not remedy the constitutional violations. ...

"(W)e are compelled to point out that ... the state is in a poor position to assert this objection to the receivership. (It) was imposed only after the state admitted its inability to comply with ... orders intended to remedy the constitutional violations."

The opinion was written by Judge William C. Canby Jr., with concurrence from Judges Mary M. Schroeder and Michael Daly Hawkins.