Lindsay Clancy trial highlights the high stakes of psychiatric documentation
Industry Buzz
The most important lesson here is [to] document thoroughly and carefully. If something matters clinically ... write it clearly, because years later, you may remember what you meant, but the attorney, the jury, the experts are going to see what you wrote.
—Ali Haider, MD, via TikTok
When a psychiatrist’s treatment notes become courtroom evidence, every phrase can take on new weight. In the Lindsay Clancy trial, the most consequential testimony may not be about a single prescription—it may be about what Clancy’s psychiatrist knew, what she documented, and what was not available to her.
Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, has pleaded not guilty to charges related to the January 2023 deaths of her three children.[] Her defense argues that postpartum psychosis and medication effects left her not criminally responsible, while prosecutors contend the killings were deliberate.[] As the trial continues, the testimony of Jennifer Tufts, MD—who treated Clancy via telehealth from September 2023 through January 2023—has become a focal point.[]
The final visit and the limits of a clinical snapshot
Dr. Tufts testified that, during a visit the day before the deaths, Clancy denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation and showed no signs of psychosis or mania. Dr. Tufts described depression, anxiety, emotional numbness, and low motivation, but said she did not recommend hospitalization for Clancy at the time.[]
She had treated Clancy in 14 telehealth sessions and testified that she never appeared psychotic.[]
That testimony is central to the prosecution’s argument that treating clinicians did not observe psychosis. It is also important to keep the record precise: Dr. Tufts testified that Clancy had described being “close to feeling suicidal” while denying active suicidal ideation.[]
This was Clancy’s report to Tufts—not a finding that Tufts equated with active intent, plan, psychosis, or imminent risk.[]
The defense has instead emphasized the broader treatment history, including insomnia, depression, intrusive thoughts, medication concerns, medication changes, and a recent psychiatric hospitalization.[][]
Related: Lindsay Clancy’s malpractice suits put postpartum psychiatric care under a microscopeWhen shorthand becomes the story
The sharpest exchange occurred when defense attorney Kevin Reddington challenged Dr. Tufts over documentation concerning “pressured speech,” a potential marker of mania.[]
“The most important lesson here is [to] document thoroughly and carefully,” Ali Haider, MD, a cardiologist, said in a TikTok. “We all write hundreds, eventually thousands of notes, and they’re not gonna be perfect. But if something matters clinically ... write it clearly, because years later, you may remember what you meant, but the attorney, the jury, the experts are going to see what you wrote.”
Dr. Tufts maintained that Clancy did not have pressured speech and that the defense was misreading her note.[]
The cross-examination also explored Dr. Tufts’ lack of access to complete records from other recent treatment, her reliance on Clancy’s disclosures, and her surprise at learning that Clancy had reportedly called a suicide hotline twice.[][]
For physicians, the point is that clinical shorthand can become highly consequential when separated from the encounter it was meant to summarize. A checked box, ambiguous modifier, or undocumented rationale may later be parsed word by word.
Dr. Tufts’ testimony does not resolve the central legal question. It does, however, offer a sobering reminder that documentation is both a clinical tool and the enduring record of clinical judgment.
Related: More than 30 malpractice claims raise questions about this surgeon’s decisions