Cardi B, Plaintiff’s Attorney Battle in Heated Courtroom Exchange

It was a quiet afternoon in court when Dr. McKin, a licensed psychologist, took the stand. The attorney began with a simple question.

“Good afternoon, Dr. McKin. Thank you for being here today. Are you here under subpoena?”

“Yes,” she answered.

“And you were subpoenaed by both sides?”

“Yes.”

The attorney then pointed to a woman sitting nearby. “Do you remember seeing the person on my right, Ammani Ellis, in your medical office?”

“Yes,” Dr. McKin replied without hesitation.

“Do you remember why she came in?”

“For a workers’ compensation evaluation,” she explained.

The attorney shifted gears. “Tell us a little about your education and background. You’re a psychologist, correct?”

“Yes. I deal primarily with emotional injuries.”

“Do you ever deal with physical injuries?”

“No.”

“So, if a patient mentions physical injuries, would that be something relevant to your diagnosis, or just general information?”

Dr. McKin clarified that while she focuses on psychological effects, she sometimes notes physical complaints if they’re related to the emotional state of the patient.

When asked about the date she saw Ms. Ellis, she couldn’t recall the exact one, but believed it was in 2018. The court directed her to look at her medical records in a notebook. She confirmed the records presented—exhibit 2-001 through 2-023—were hers.

The attorney continued, “At the time of the incident, did Ms. Ellis say she was making $13.50 an hour?”

“Yes, according to the report.”

“Why is that relevant?”

Dr. McKin explained that in workers’ compensation cases, details about income are typically included for wage-loss evaluation.

In 2018, Dr. McKin was employed by Management, Inc., a corporation that specializes in psychological evaluation for industrial injuries. She held a Psy.D. license (Doctor of Psychology), which she explained differs from a Ph.D. in that it focuses more on clinical work rather than research.

She had since moved on from Management, Inc., and worked for a different employer. The attorney walked her through her previous reports.

The date of injury listed was February 24, 2018, with the first examination happening on April 26, 2018. A follow-up exam occurred on August 10, 2018.

“Did you ask Ms. Ellis to return for follow-up appointments?”

“Yes. She was seen several times.”

“And if a patient had nothing wrong with them, would they come back?”

“Typically, no,” Dr. McKin replied.

In the first paragraph of the report, Dr. McKin noted that Ms. Ellis worked as a security guard. She conducted a comprehensive psychological evaluation of her and estimated she likely spent an hour to an hour and a half with Ms. Ellis during the first session.

The attorney then pointed out that the report contained profanity. Dr. McKin confirmed she included the quotes exactly as the client reported them, explaining that in workers’ comp evaluations, it’s standard to document statements in the client’s own words.

Among the quotes Ms. Ellis allegedly reported hearing 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.”*

The attorney asked whether Dr. McKin used this quote in her diagnosis or treatment.

“I can’t say that I did,” she admitted.

So why include them? “To capture the emotional experience as reported by the client, in their own words.”

Dr. McKin affirmed she understood the importance of truthfulness in such evaluations, and that she herself signed the reports under penalty of perjury, verifying their accuracy to the best of her knowledge.

When asked if she had treated patients on a lien basis—where treatment is provided before payment is received—Dr. McKin explained that many workers’ comp cases work that way. The corporation bills, then waits for approval or denial.

The attorney moved on to physical injuries. “If I told you I broke my finger, shoulder, knee, back, fell and hit my head, and now have psychological issues, would you focus on the physical injuries?”

“No. I would focus on the psychological injuries resulting from those physical issues,” she clarified.

“And if physical symptoms like scars or bruises weren’t in your report, does that mean they didn’t happen?”

“I can’t say that. If it was included in the intake forms, I may have addressed it.”

The MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) test was also mentioned. Ms. Ellis completed this test, which contains over 500 true-or-false questions. Dr. McKin’s office scored and interpreted the results.

After the test, a re-evaluation was conducted on November 26, 2018. Dr. McKin again confirmed she signed off on this second report under penalty of perjury.

Lastly, the court reviewed billing records. On April 26, 2018, Dr. McKin’s office billed $600. Then, on August 10, two bills of $150 each were submitted. Additional treatment on May 18, 2018 was also billed for $150.