Lindsay Clancy Trial: Psychiatrist Admits She Never Used Key Postpartum Test

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: For the last three years, whenever I've had the opportunity to talk about it, I've talked about effective cross-examination and how it can have a huge impact on any case in which there is good cross-examination done. And unfortunately, for the most part, with the possible exception of the Murdaugh trial, there have been some pretty bad cross-examinations, none that actually came close to revealing something that might have been undiscovered otherwise. But yesterday there was. Let's talk about it. I'll be right back. Hi, Tony DeWitt here. I am a retired Missouri attorney who has now un-retired so that I can bring you some commentary on trials and that sort of thing. Because I deal generally with legal topics, I'm not offering any legal advice and I'm not intending to form any lawyer-client relationships with any of you. I'm simply presenting some information. I am a content creator. I am not currently practicing law, although I do maintain my license in the state of Missouri. This is a trial channel and today we're discussing a trial. In fact, this is what we're discussing today. This is a recap for our newer viewers. On January 24, 2023, Lindsay Clancy's three young children died in their Duxbury, Massachusetts home. The state says Clancy deliberately planned their deaths and understood what she was doing. The defense acknowledges that she caused deaths, but argues she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible. The central question is not who caused the deaths, that's known, but whether Clancy was legally responsible when they occurred. When you work in a hospital, like I did for 13 years, you pick up a few things that manifest themselves in what we would call gallows humor. And they often express truisms that you wouldn't be able to locate in any other way. And specifically, when it comes to working in university hospitals, those of us who have and did know that July 1st is the absolute worst day to go to a university hospital emergency room. Now, you're probably wondering why, what is it about July 1st that makes a difference? Well, that's the day the new residents start. They've just gotten out of medical school. They have just graduated. They've gotten past the medical licensing exam. And now they're a bonafide MD. And they are going to be on the job trained for somewhere between one and four or sometimes in surgical things, eight to ten years. It just depends on how much and how in-depth of their training they want to get. But on July 1st, if you get a new resident, somebody who doesn't have any clinical experience, and you present with a set of symptoms, a lot of times they'll miss the nuances and you wind up getting misdiagnosed and sometimes mistreated. Now, it doesn't happen very often, but it is generally said among those of us in the healthcare professions that July 1st is probably not the best day to go to the university hospital because that's when the new residents start. And although there are some community hospitals that have residents, for the most part, residency programs are operated out of university settings. And that's a good thing because you want people trained under academic standards, not under what I would call the fiscal standards that dominate in the healthcare industry in the community hospital side. So, the cross-examination yesterday was a tour de force by Kevin Reddington. He was masterful in that he got a lot of really good information and he didn't have to yell at her. He didn't have to scream at her. All he did was ask questions and he asked them in a way that made it pretty clear that he was just hard. It was hard to understand how all of this could have happened in the way that it did. And especially when you consider, as we go through here, you'll find out that she finished her residency program at the end of July, that year, 22, 2022. She got a job with Astra in August of 2022. She had a whole month's worth of clinical experience as a independently practicing physician. Now, he doesn't make a big deal of it. But generally speaking, when you are a resident, you have a senior resident, somebody that has been in the residency program, they're usually in their final year. You have someone who is an attending, and you may have someone who is a program director. So that if you have a truly vexing problem, a really difficult case, you have somebody to go to and say, you know, I just don't understand this patient. They've got this problem. They've got the other problem. I'm not sure how the two are connected. Can you help me out with it? And it's a collegial atmosphere because they are training people to be good doctors, not bad doctors, not negligent doctors. They want you to know the standards and the standards of care. And the standard of care is universally defined as what a reasonable and prudent physician would do under the same or similar circumstances. So, what you have to know is, as a physician, when you start practicing, you have to be able to spot the issues, make the appropriate diagnoses, use the appropriate tests, and recommend the appropriate treatment. If you don't have the clinical experience, you mess things up. Let me give you a personal example. When I first started as a respiratory therapist, I had been out of respiratory therapy school for about a month. And I was working in a small hospital, a small Nebraska hospital. And that small Nebraska hospital had reasonably good doctors. And most of them were very good at telling you when you needed to know something or when you had made a mistake. And I based my treatment of a particular ventilator patient, so somebody who's not breathing on his own, I based my settings on what was in the record. And the doctor disagreed with me and came over and told me, look, if you had more clinical experience in this particular situation, you would have set the ventilator this way. I've never forgotten that. He wasn't angry with me. He didn't call me stupid. He said, this is what you need to know. This is what you need to ask. You know, if you don't know something, don't assume. And he said something that has also stuck with me. You've all heard the whole thing about what assume means. You know, how it makes something out of you and me. But he told me that assume was the mother of all screw-ups, except he didn't say screw-ups. And that I had assumed and I'd gotten it wrong. I think what you are going to see when you watch this cross-examination, and I'm going to try to avoid interrupting much of it because it is really something to watch. I think you're going to see somebody who just lacked the clinical expertise, the clinical experience, and perhaps more importantly, the clinical curiosity. One of the things that was important to me when I worked as a therapist is if the ventilator settings and the blood gas settings didn't match up, something was wrong. And you just never accept that. You investigate, you find out what the problem is, and you fix it. I think she didn't recognize the problem or didn't know how to fix it. But one way or the other, I think that the doctor here is probably more to blame for what happened than Lindsey Clancy. Many of you may disagree with that, and that's okay. That's just my opinion. But that's what I think. So with that introduction, let's take a listen to this tour de force of just a masterful cross-examination of this psychiatrist. [00:10:23] Speaker 2: You had an ad that was in on the computer that if somebody wanted to reach out to a doctor, they could see your ad amongst many others, right? [00:10:35] Speaker 3: Well, I don't think there was an ad. I think we have a website that had some information about myself. [00:10:41] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:10:42] Speaker 2: Now, in August of 22, up until when you saw Lindsey, how many patients in that month or so had you treated for postpartum psychosis? [00:10:56] Speaker 3: How many patients in a month, up until that month? [00:10:59] Speaker 2: I'm asking you about when you started working in August of 22 for Aster. And if you are now on your own as an employee, how many patients had you treated before you saw Lindsey Clancy's postpartum psychosis? [00:11:14] Speaker 3: Well, in the span of one month, I would say none because it's a very rare disorder. [00:11:20] Speaker 2: Okay. But it exists, doesn't it? [00:11:23] Speaker 3: Absolutely. [00:11:24] Speaker 2: And one of the things would be the voices that people hear, right? [00:11:30] Speaker 3: That is a symptom of psychosis, absolutely. [00:11:33] Speaker 2: And that's legitimate, isn't it? [00:11:35] Speaker 3: It is a legitimate diagnosis, absolutely. [00:11:38] Speaker 2: Not a diagnosis. How many people that have postpartum psychosis hear voices, do they not? [00:11:44] Speaker 3: Many do. The disorder can manifest differently in different people, but yes, many people do hear voices. [00:11:54] Speaker 2: How about postpartum depression? How many people in that month or so, before you met Lindsey, did you treat for postpartum depression? [00:12:05] Speaker 3: In the span of one month, it's really hard to pinpoint that. Maybe a couple. [00:12:13] Speaker 2: Maybe a couple? And do you recall how long you treated them for? [00:12:22] Speaker 3: Again, it's hard to really pin down the individuals in a short span of time. [00:12:28] Speaker 2: Can you tell the jury what you put in your ad or in the Aster website that you indicated that described you? [00:12:39] Speaker 3: I don't recall. [00:12:41] Speaker 2: Well, one of the things you did is that you said that you basically were a specialist in postpartum people that can't read about them, psychiatry. You indicated that on your website, didn't you? [00:12:56] Speaker 3: Are you able to read the actual document? I don't remember exactly the wording. [00:13:01] Speaker 2: You've been working now for how many years now? Three since you saw Lindsey? [00:13:05] Speaker 3: Almost four, yes. [00:13:07] Speaker 2: You haven't changed your ad on the website, have you? [00:13:11] Speaker 3: I have not personally, no. [00:13:14] Speaker 2: And you've read it probably a bunch of times, right? [00:13:17] Speaker 3: I've read it a couple times, but I don't spend a lot of time on my website. [00:13:22] Speaker 2: Okay. Do you recall that you indicated that you were specializing in any particular aspect of psychiatry? [00:13:31] Speaker 3: Yes. It probably includes a special interest in women's health, in perinatal psychiatry, in trauma-related disorders, anxiety, and there may be some other things that were mentioned. [00:13:50] Speaker 2: Yeah, like women that have babies and they're suffering from postpartum depression, right? Absolutely. You advertise that after a month working for ASTA, right? [00:14:00] Speaker 3: That's listed as one of my interests, definitely. [00:14:03] Speaker 2: And again, forgive me, how many women did you treat for postpartum depression in that month and a half before you met Lindsey? [00:14:12] Speaker 3: I don't know, maybe a couple. [00:14:13] Speaker 1: Now, she's obviously met with her lawyer in the civil case to discuss her being sued. And as a result of that, she is very, very cautious about describing herself as a specialist. But when you say, well, that's one of my interests, it's simply another way of describing you being a specialist in that field. And I think that's how most people look at it. When, for example, I looked for an ophthalmologist for my wife who was interested in and had treated macular degeneration because we were afraid that was something that she had. Turned out she did not. And the person we got was clearly an expert in that field. I have no doubt. I continue to see that doctor to this day. Great doctor. The interesting thing to me is that even though they don't say they are a specialist, I can guarantee you that when the insurance gets a bill, they bill her at the specialist rate. That's my opinion anyway. [00:15:32] Speaker 3: But I've treated, I've treated many of them in the residency, which was just immediately before. [00:15:38] Speaker 2: So when a person needs to see a psychiatrist, generally they're not well. Is that fair? [00:15:48] Speaker 3: Some are not well. It really can vary. [00:15:51] Speaker 2: So when someone comes to see a psychiatrist like you, it's because they need help, right? Yes. And when they come to you because they need help, for example, with Lindsay Clancy, she came to you because of your ad, right? Or your website for Asta, what you said about yourself. [00:16:13] Speaker 3: I don't know exactly how she found us. [00:16:17] Speaker 2: Well, do you know why she came to see you? [00:16:22] Speaker 3: I'm not sure exactly. [00:16:25] Speaker 2: Friday, we spent a long period of time going through your initial, or the initial intake that she had to fill out. Is that correct? Do you recall that? Yes, we did. And the district attorney kept asking you, and this is in September, is it September 12th? Is that when that form was filled out? [00:16:44] Speaker 3: I believe she completed the form on the 12th. The appointment was on the 15th. [00:16:50] Speaker 2: So what does a person do? Do they call you, or do they talk to somebody in administration? How do you get the form to fill out? [00:16:58] Speaker 3: Yes. Our administration handles that. [00:17:02] Speaker 2: And what do they do? How does that happen? [00:17:05] Speaker 3: They send them the documents, probably by email, and the patient fills them out. Actually, it might be all within the portal that we use. [00:17:22] Speaker 2: Within the portal? [00:17:23] Speaker 3: The patient portal, yes. [00:17:24] Speaker 2: And that means that you go online, and you can access Aster Mental Health, and then all these little drop-down boxes would come up? [00:17:32] Speaker ?: Something like that. [00:17:34] Speaker 2: Are you aware of something like that, or are you aware of what it does? [00:17:38] Speaker 3: So, because I don't handle the scheduling and the sending of forms, I don't know exactly what it looks like. [00:17:46] Speaker 2: This is the form that you're giving a person that needs help because they're possibly mentally ill. Is that right? [00:17:52] Speaker 3: Yes, and what's important is that I review the forms, and we go through them in the appointment. Absolutely. Oh, yes. [00:18:00] Speaker 2: Yes. Now, understand that the records, Exhibit 219, I believe, the jury will have access to the Tufts records. Okay? You're aware of that, right? You don't see the exhibit. Yes. Because you have talked to the prosecution about what an exhibit is, and you know that your records are now in evidence before this jury, right? [00:18:27] Speaker 3: Um, if that's what you say, yes. [00:18:30] Speaker 2: Um, I wouldn't take what I said. [00:18:32] Speaker 3: Well, I don't, I don't really, I don't know the details of how this works, but. [00:18:37] Speaker 2: Have you talked to them prior to your testimony? [00:18:39] Speaker 3: No. [00:18:40] Speaker 2: You haven't talked to the VA's office? [00:18:42] Speaker 3: No, not at all. [00:18:43] Speaker 2: Um, you're a defendant in a very large lawsuit, are you not? Yes. Liberal. [00:18:54] Speaker 3: Um, yes. [00:18:55] Speaker 2: You wouldn't happen to be represented by an attorney, would you? [00:18:59] Speaker 3: I am. [00:19:01] Speaker 2: And the fact that you have an attorney as your right under the Constitution doesn't mean that you're guilty of anything, right? [00:19:08] Speaker 3: Um, right. [00:19:09] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:19:10] Speaker 2: And you know that the outcome of this case is very, very major to the outcome of your lawsuit. Yes. Is that right? Totally. [00:19:24] Speaker 3: I don't actually know that. [00:19:27] Speaker 1: If she doesn't actually know that, she hasn't been paying attention, or she didn't listen to her attorney before she came to court. The reason that's important is because if the jury convicts Lindsay, in other words, they find that they, in their opinion, that she was this scheming monster who, who did what she did because she wanted out of being a mom, which is ridiculous, based on what we've heard. Because of that, because of that, they would obviously place the blame on her as opposed to the psychiatrist. But if she is acquitted, if Lindsay Clancy is acquitted, that means the jury believes that the medical profession here, whether it's the psychiatrists or the hospitals or whatever, did not do their jobs. And that would be, and that would be very bad for this young psychiatrist's case. So, that's the genesis of why he is asking about this. Now, the prosecutor objected once, got overruled, objected again, got overruled. What was the objection? The objection was that it was irrelevant or whatever, except it's not, because a witness's bias is always important in evaluating their credibility. So, she has a huge interest in making Lindsay out to be the bad person here, and herself being, you know, just, she just did everything right, because that helps her in her private lawsuit. And, of course, if she loses that, that's going to make it very difficult for her in a number of ways. She'll get reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. All kinds of problems come with that. So, in that regard, just so you know, that's one of the reasons he's bringing this up, is because it does have a major impact in that case, and that case has a major impact in her profession. [00:21:31] Speaker 2: So, you understand that if, in fact, it's determined that you advertised as an expert in postpartum, and in postpartum psychiatry, and you had a month experience plus a residence, would you consider that to be negligent or misrepresentation? [00:21:52] Speaker 3: I do not believe that I have been negligent. [00:21:56] Speaker 2: Do you understand what misrepresentation means? [00:21:59] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:21:59] Speaker 2: With a month-ending adult plus your residency, do you really want this jury to believe that you were an expert? Do you empathize that? [00:22:07] Speaker 3: I don't think that's exactly the wording that I used. I think I said that it was an interest of mine. [00:22:12] Speaker 4: What's the answer? No. Go ahead. You can answer that. [00:22:16] Speaker 3: I just think the wording was that it's an interest of mine. I don't believe I called myself an expert. [00:22:24] Speaker 2: Are you an expert in postpartum? [00:22:27] Speaker 3: I may be. I don't know. I think it depends on what you define an expert as. [00:22:34] Speaker 2: Well, when a patient comes to you and they fill out the form, you agree with me that your records reflect that form that she filled out on September 12th of 2022, right? [00:22:51] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:22:51] Speaker 2: And the form that the district attorney went through, painstakingly, with you, is basically, you put something like this, right? That's one of the forms that you've got people fill out, right? Yes. Right? [00:23:13] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:23:14] Speaker 2: See the little checkmark? [00:23:17] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:23:17] Speaker 2: Who puts the checkmark in there? [00:23:19] Speaker 3: The patient. [00:23:20] Speaker 2: So, how many pages, because I don't want to go through all the pages yet. How many pages does a patient, or how many pages did Lindsay go through to check the boxes for acid? [00:23:34] Speaker 3: There were a lot of pages. [00:23:36] Speaker 2: It was a lot. 10, 20? [00:23:39] Speaker 3: Yeah, maybe, between 10 and 20. [00:23:41] Speaker 2: Okay. And basically, they're all little checks in boxes, correct? [00:23:46] Speaker 3: Not just checks. [00:23:47] Speaker 2: No? So, does the person then answer questions by typing in an answer, such as, do you have any pending legal problems? No. Have you ever been arrested? No. Things of that nature, right? [00:24:03] Speaker 3: Those are some of the questions. [00:24:05] Speaker 2: And the question's also, do they ask the patient what medications they were on? Yes. Before seeing you? Yes. And Lindsay told you that she was on SSRIs in the past, right? [00:24:19] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:24:20] Speaker 2: And an SSRI means what? [00:24:23] Speaker 3: A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. [00:24:27] Speaker 2: And that's pretty powerful stuff, isn't it? [00:24:29] Speaker 3: It's an effective treatment for depression and anxiety. [00:24:32] Speaker 2: Well, it affects the serotonin levels in the brain, doesn't it? [00:24:36] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:24:37] Speaker 2: It rewires the brain, doesn't it? [00:24:38] Speaker 3: It doesn't rewire the brain. It increases the serotonin. And many individuals with depression have low levels of serotonin. [00:24:49] Speaker 2: So, Lindsay told you that she had been prescribed an SSRI when she was in nursing school. Is that right? [00:24:58] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:24:58] Speaker 2: What was the SSRI? [00:25:00] Speaker 3: Prozac. [00:25:02] Speaker 2: And how long was she on the Prozac? [00:25:05] Speaker 3: I'm not sure. [00:25:06] Speaker 2: You never asked. [00:25:07] Speaker 3: I probably asked. [00:25:10] Speaker 2: You never asked? Isn't it true? Don't you guys have a saying that if it's not written, it didn't happen? You take copious notes, do you not? [00:25:18] Speaker 3: It's impossible to write down every single thing that's said. So, I write down what is clinically relevant, clinically necessary. But there's a lot that is discussed over an hour that is not able to be written down. [00:25:35] Speaker 1: When I did seminars for healthcare professionals, I always told them that documentation was important and that if it wasn't written down, if it wasn't documented, it wasn't done. Because you can't prove that it was done if you didn't write it down. Now, she's making an excuse here, and that's exactly what it is. Well, I can't write down. I write down anything that's clinically relevant. Well, obviously, the length of time that she was on SSRIs would be clinically relevant if you're putting her back on SSRIs. So, the idea that she doesn't know how long she was on when she was in nursing school is pretty clear lapse in judgment, in my opinion. And that will be beaten to death in the civil lawsuit. I don't think he's going to beat her up too bad here about it. But, again, she's making an excuse, and she's not being completely candid in that, well, I can't write everything down. Well, no, but you can write down what's important. My suspicion is she never asked how long she was in. She can't recall because it probably never happened. Again, my opinion, based on a long time working in hospitals and handling medical negligence cases. [00:27:00] Speaker 2: Such as the fact that a person was on an SSRI when they were in nursing school is not an important fact to find out. [00:27:08] Speaker 3: Oh, no, that's important. [00:27:10] Speaker 2: Sorry. No problem. I'm not doing, you know, the Sophie Cunningham at you. I'm just asking a question. That's all, and you can answer it, okay? How about if she had a reaction to Prozac? [00:27:24] Speaker 3: I asked her about the Prozac. [00:27:26] Speaker 2: Is that written in your notes? [00:27:27] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:27:28] Speaker 2: And what did she say? [00:27:30] Speaker 3: I mean, she said that she took it for a period of time. She didn't mention any side effects. [00:27:36] Speaker 2: Oh, she didn't tell you that she had side effects. I see. So when a patient comes to see you with a month under your belt, and they're sick, and they're looking for help, you wait for them to volunteer facts to you? [00:27:49] Speaker 1: That is such an awesome question, and it gets right to the heart of what I was saying about clinical curiosity. If somebody's been on a drug previously, you want to know what it did for them, or what it did to them, or how it affected them. Did it treat the condition that they had? Were they better off taking it, or were they worse off taking it? To have not asked about that is at least as important as not knowing the answer to it. [00:28:20] Speaker 3: She volunteered a lot of information. She knew very well what her medical history was, and was able to provide that for me. [00:28:28] Speaker 2: Such as what? That she was in nursing school and took Prozac? [00:28:33] Speaker 3: That's part of it. [00:28:34] Speaker 2: And she told you that, right? Yes. And she was pretty upfront and honest with you, wasn't she, in answering these questions, right? I believe that she was. We all spent some time talking about the fact that she declared that she had consumed alcohol, that she felt guilty about it. You recall that on Friday? We dwelled on that for a while, didn't we? [00:28:54] Speaker 3: Yes, that was a component, yes. [00:28:56] Speaker 2: I mean, that's something that's important, right? [00:28:59] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:29:01] Speaker 2: What was her drink of choice? [00:29:04] Speaker 3: I'm not sure. [00:29:06] Speaker 2: Did you ever ask her? [00:29:07] Speaker 3: I'm not sure. [00:29:09] Speaker 1: You see what he's doing here. What's the death by a thousand paper cuts? I don't know. I'm not sure. I don't recall. All of those things illustrate to the jury that she lacks awareness of some basic facts that should have been pretty important. But in just a second here, we're going to get to the fact that she didn't use the correct diagnostic test for postpartum depression. And that, I think, is probably one of the more important things that came out. It's already a fairly long video, so I'm going to cut this a little bit short. But pay attention here when we talk about the test for postpartum depression. [00:29:57] Speaker 3: We were not concerned that her level of alcohol use was... [00:30:05] Speaker 2: Well, the VA certainly was, right, right? [00:30:07] Speaker 4: He is. And everybody knows. Doctor, wait for the question, all right? And then same thing, I'll have counsel wait until you finish your answer. All right? Go ahead, Ms. Rennington. [00:30:18] Speaker 2: So, is it important, Doctor, for you, as a physician, to know your patient? In other words, know who they are? Yes. And you know that Lindsay was a nurse, correct? Yes. You know that she graduated, obviously, from college, right? Yes. Is she a good student? [00:30:44] Speaker 3: I don't recall. [00:30:45] Speaker 2: Do you know when she got married? [00:30:48] Speaker 3: I don't recall that specific detail. I don't know. I knew she was married. [00:30:56] Speaker 2: She had three kids, right? Yes. And the reason that you knew that she was married is because you spoke to her husband, Patrick, correct? Or did you? [00:31:06] Speaker 3: Sorry? [00:31:07] Speaker 2: Or did you? [00:31:08] Speaker 3: He attended one of the appointments, and I spoke with him on that date. Ah. [00:31:14] Speaker 2: And did you say, hi, how are you, and we came to your office? [00:31:18] Speaker 3: It was telemedicine. [00:31:20] Speaker 2: It was what? [00:31:21] Speaker 3: Telemedicine. [00:31:22] Speaker 2: Telemedicine. Is it fair to say that after, what is it, 14, I think you said to the jury, 14 appointments that you had with Lindsay during that period from September till January? 14 appointments? [00:31:41] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:31:42] Speaker 2: Every single one of them were by telemedicine, weren't they? [00:31:47] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:31:47] Speaker 2: Until you came in this courtroom Friday, you never saw this woman in person, did you? [00:31:53] Speaker 3: Correct. [00:31:54] Speaker 2: Now, as a psychiatrist, meeting with this young woman, after a month or so of working as a psychiatrist for Astor, there are tests that you administer to a woman who's in postpartum to find out what type of anxiety they have, right? [00:32:14] Speaker 3: Well, there are some screening tests, but the most important thing is what the patient tells you and what my assessment is in the session. [00:32:22] Speaker 2: I see. And that would carry through the Tufts evaluations for all 14 of those meetings is what the patient tells you, right? [00:32:33] Speaker 3: Yes, and what I observe in the session. [00:32:35] Speaker 2: Through the television? [00:32:37] Speaker 3: Through the computer. [00:32:41] Speaker 2: What, if you can tell me, is the Edenberg test? [00:32:48] Speaker 3: It is a scale that looks at symptoms of postpartum depression. [00:32:55] Speaker 2: And when you administer it, that's a major test, isn't it, for a doctor to evaluate a patient for PPD? [00:33:02] Speaker 3: I wouldn't say it's a major test. [00:33:04] Speaker 2: It's a pretty big one, though, isn't it? It's the only one that measures the postpartum depression, right? [00:33:10] Speaker 3: It's a common one. [00:33:12] Speaker 2: It's a what? [00:33:13] Speaker 3: Common. Commonly used. [00:33:14] Speaker ?: Commonly. [00:33:15] Speaker 2: So when you used it on Lindsay, when was that administered to her? [00:33:20] Speaker 3: I did not use it on Lindsay. [00:33:23] Speaker 2: Why? [00:33:26] Speaker 3: We used the PHQ-9, which is a... What is the PHQ-9? It's a depression screening form. [00:33:33] Speaker 2: That's like generalized anxiety disorder, general depression. It's got nothing to do with a woman suffering from postpartum depression, does it? [00:33:41] Speaker 3: I disagree. [00:33:42] Speaker 1: When the jury goes back to evaluate the candor of this doctor, I hope they remember that answer. I disagree. Well, maybe you disagree. But if that's the only test that measures this, and you didn't use it, I mean, it's a little bit like using a chest x-ray to diagnose a pulmonary emboli. You can sometimes see a pulmonary emboli on a chest x-ray, but the gold standard for figuring out if somebody has a pulmonary emboli is a spiral CT. And that's what every hospital now uses. They don't use just your standard chest x-ray anymore. And so, if you don't do what the rest of the medical community does, in most cases, that's a deviation from the standard of care, and it's the very definition of negligence. [00:34:37] Speaker 2: Well, do you agree that people, perhaps, that may know a little more than you, determine that the Edenberg scale is the appropriate scale to administer to a pregnant or postpartum woman? [00:34:48] Speaker 3: Objection. [00:34:49] Speaker 2: It's a state as to form. You're familiar with the Edenberg scale, right? [00:34:53] Speaker 3: I've heard of it. [00:34:55] Speaker 2: And can you explain to me how it's graded? [00:34:58] Speaker 3: No, I cannot. [00:35:00] Speaker 1: And now you know why she didn't use it. She's not really familiar with it. [00:35:07] Speaker 2: There are 30 questions in it, are there not? [00:35:10] Speaker 3: I don't use this scale, so I don't know how many questions there are. [00:35:14] Speaker 2: So, the Edenberg scale, do you even know that the cutoff for someone that is depressed in their condition of postpartum would be 15? Anything over that? They're in severe depression? [00:35:29] Speaker 3: Okay. [00:35:30] Speaker 2: Do you know that her first Edenberg test that was administered to her put her at a 23? Objection. No, overall. Severe depression? [00:35:41] Speaker 3: I was not aware of this test. I was not aware that this had been administered to her. [00:35:48] Speaker 1: The remainder of this cross-examination is every bit as much a train wreck as this has been, at least for the prosecution. I think Mr. Reddington is showing her up to be ill-prepared to be treating patients on her own. I think she probably needed another couple of years of residency, or at least to have practiced in a group setting where she had colleagues that she could talk with. The idea that you have this woman out there behind a computer screen doing telemedicine, I just wonder about the wisdom of that. I would hope that the people who employ her would be looking at this cross-examination and going, oh, my goodness, we've got a problem. Because you should not put someone out there to dabble in the human mind who doesn't understand all of the aspects of the condition that she is supposedly having a special interest in. That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Yeah, well, I've gone on long enough, and I've talked long enough. Tell me what you think. Tell me how you view this witness. Tell me how you think about the cross-examination. Tell me what you think of Mr. Reddington's style and skill. And catch me back here tomorrow. Thanks for watching my video. I really appreciate it. And today, as you go about your business, would you try to do just one kind thing for somebody? It doesn't have to be a big thing. You can open a door for somebody who has their arms full. You could buy somebody a Coke. You could let the manager know when somebody did a really good job for you at the grocery store or at Walmart or someplace else. There are all kinds of things we can do to make people's lives better. And a lot of times, people will always remember to go to the manager and complain. They very seldom remember to go to the manager and say, hey, you know, that guy over there and produce is top-notch. And I think it's really important to do that because I want to make the world a better place. I know you're here probably because you want to make the world a better place. So let's do that. Now let's be respectful of one another. And thank God we live in the greatest country in the free world. I do think that the good folks at YouTube have a few things they want to show you up here that you might be interested in. And if you are, I'd appreciate you clicking. Thanks. Have a great day.