Alleged Victim’s Psychologist Testifies In Cardi B’s Civil Assault Trial

The Psychologist’s Testimony: Dr. McKin’s Account

On a quiet afternoon in the courtroom, Dr. McKin took the stand.

A licensed psychologist, subpoenaed by both parties, Dr. McKin was called to testify about her professional interactions with the plaintiff, Imani Ellis. Calm and composed, she began by confirming that she had seen Ms. Ellis in her medical office in 2018. She didn’t recall the exact date, but with some assistance from her records, she confirmed that the first examination took place on April 26, 2018, approximately two months after an incident reported to have occurred on February 24, 2018.

Dr. McKin explained her role clearly. As a psychologist—not a medical doctor—her focus was exclusively on emotional and psychological injuries, particularly those connected to workplace trauma or stress. She had earned a Psy.D. (Doctor of Psychology), a clinical doctorate focused on treatment rather than academic research, distinguishing her from those with a Ph.D. in psychology. After roughly ten years of education and training beyond high school, she had dedicated her career to mental health care, especially in cases related to worker’s compensation.

Back in 2018, Dr. McKin was working for a company called Managed Med, Inc., a psychological firm that evaluated patients who had sustained emotional injuries at work. She was employed there when Imani Ellis was referred for an evaluation.

According to her documentation, Ellis had come in as part of a worker’s compensation claim. At the time, Ellis reported she was earning $13.50 an hour as a security guard. The reason for including wage information, Dr. McKin explained, was standard practice in cases involving claims of lost income due to injury.

When Ellis first came in, the psychological exam lasted about an hour to an hour and a half—a typical length for an initial visit. Dr. McKin also noted that Ellis returned for multiple follow-up visits, including one on August 10, 2018, and another re-evaluation on November 26, 2018. Each visit had corresponding billing, typically around $150–$300, depending on the service.

A major focus of the questioning was on the verbal account Ellis gave during her evaluation. Dr. McKin had documented several profanities and insults that Ellis claimed were said to her by a celebrity involved in the incident. Among the reported phrases were:
“F* you, you fat a**, that’s why you do security, that’s why I’m going to get you fired, that’s why I’m rich and you’re poor.”**

Dr. McKin explained that she included these direct quotes verbatim in her report to accurately reflect the patient’s account in their own words. She did not record the conversation with a device, but rather took handwritten or typed notes at the time.

The court then questioned the relevance of physical injuries. Dr. McKin made it clear: as a psychologist, she does not diagnose or treat physical injuries. If a patient presented with visible wounds, like a cut on the face, she would refer them to a medical doctor. Her job was to assess the psychological impact of any physical trauma—not the injury itself.

As for Ellis’s specific case, Dr. McKin stated that the only physical symptoms she could recall were headaches and trouble sleeping, both of which were documented in her reports. She could not recall whether Ellis had mentioned any visible scars or scratches, though she acknowledged that such details, if noted in intake forms, would typically be included.

At one point in the testimony, the defense asked whether the absence of a noted physical injury in Dr. McKin’s report meant that no injury occurred. The psychologist cautiously replied that she couldn’t make that determination; her job wasn’t to investigate or validate physical injuries—it was to document psychological symptoms as described by the patient.

Dr. McKin also conducted a well-known test called the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), a psychological questionnaire with hundreds of true/false questions designed to detect emotional and mental health issues. Imani Ellis completed the test during one of her visits. The test was scored and interpreted by the office, contributing to Dr. McKin’s psychological evaluation.

Throughout the process, Dr. McKin signed and submitted reports under penalty of perjury, affirming that her documentation was truthful and compliant with California labor laws. She acknowledged that her evaluations were billed through the company she worked for, and while she wasn’t sure whether the claims were paid or denied, she confirmed that the typical process involved submitting bills for payment at a later date—often through lien-based arrangements, common in workers’ comp cases.

In the end, Dr. McKin confirmed that she had diagnosed psychological injuries based on Ellis’s reports and behavior during their visits. She could not testify about any physical harm outside of what was mentioned, but her documentation reflected a consistent account of emotional distress, tied to the events of February 2018.

Her calm demeanor and careful answers underscored a crucial point: psychological trauma doesn’t always leave visible marks—but it’s real, and it’s her job to document and treat it.