This case arises from a trip and fall Plaintiff, Vivian Conerly, experienced on June 27, 2022 in the Hobby Lobby store in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. As she entered the store’s vestibule and rounded a display table, her shin struck a metal cart, and she fell face first onto the store’s concrete floor.
Plaintiffs designated Dr. Jaime Jiménez as an expert. Jiménez is expected to testify that Conerly’s fall at Hobby Lobby caused the tributary branch retinal vein occlusion (“BRVO”) in her left eye and that she will require retinal injections as future treatment for this condition.
However, Hobby Lobby sought to exclude his causation opinion on the grounds that it is unreliable because his opinion is based on facts he did not ask, examine, or otherwise determine from his treatment of Conerly.
Ophthalmology Expert Witness
Dr. Jaime Jiménez-Agosto is a board-certified ophthalmic surgeon. He is also fellowship-trained in vitreoretinal surgery. He has performed over fifteen thousand vitrectomies and more than fifty thousand retinal procedures.
Discussion by the Court
A. Causation Opinion
Hobby Lobby asserted that Jiménez’s opinion is unreliable because Jiménez admitted that he does not know whether Conerly performed a Valsalva maneuver and instead relies on the assumption that she did because he personally holds his breath when he falls.
Having reviewed the record evidence, the Court found that Jiménez’s opinion that the fall caused Conerly’s tributary BRVO is not based on assumptions or ipse dixit. Instead, Jiménez reviewed Conerly’s history; he reviewed her deposition and noted that after the fall she immediately complained of pain in her eye and exhibited symptoms consistent with a tributary BRVO; he personally examined her and ran tests that showed the retinal swelling had gotten worse; and, most importantly, he watched the video that showed her falling rapidly and hitting the ground with the left side of her face, which arguably could be better evidence than Conerly’s own recollection. These are the types of records, documents and materials commonly relied on by medical experts.
Hobby Lobby is asking the Court to assign significance to Jiménez’s “lack of factual knowledge” based on unestablished supposition of what is required for a tributary BRVO to occur. The record is not clear—could hitting one’s eye with significant force be enough? Would only compressing the abdominal area be enough? Without knowing exactly what is required, it is further unclear whether Conerly performing a “Valsalva maneuver” is even necessary. Similarly, as for Jiménez’s not knowing what delta-v force occurred presupposes that there must be a specific delta-v force experienced before a tributary BRVO can occur. Given the state of the record, the Court found that these are issues to be addressed on cross-examination.
B. Future Treatment Opinion
Moreover, Hobby Lobby sought to exclude any opinion regarding future treatment on the grounds that it is too speculative.
Jiménez is one of Conerly’s treating physicians. He has testified about the healing process of a tributary BRVO—that it must be monitored and that treatment for swelling is provided when needed. With BRVO treatment, “you stretch it out as much as you can, but it’s very frequent to have relapses.”
He treated Conerly on a regular basis throughout 2025. Basically, his ongoing evaluations provided him with additional clinical observations and data to refine his opinions.
Therefore, the Court found that Jiménez’s opinion as a treating physician regarding future medical treatment was admissible.
Held
The Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Dr. Jaime Jiménez.
Key Takeaway
An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. As a general rule, questions relating to the bases and sources of an expert’s opinion affect the weight to be assigned to that opinion rather than its admissibility and should be left for the jury’s consideration.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Conerly V. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv118 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Mississippi Southern |
| Order Date: | March 20, 2026 |
Leave a Reply