A woman who sued Wal-Mart and lost after claiming she was injured by a falling store display won’t get a new trial, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

The ruling reverses a 2017 appellate court decision that granted a new jury trial in the case.

Alexandra Rodriguez sued the mega-retailer after she said a clothing display rack weighing more than 150 pounds fell on her while she was shopping at the Turnersville location in 2010.

Rodriguez claimed she suffered an injury to her right arm and had experienced ongoing pain from the incident, but when her case went to trial, Dr. Benjamin Mark, a neurologist testifying for the defense, said the symptoms she described were the result of other injuries or “underlying physical and psychological conditions.”

The trial included testimony about the plaintiff’s prior treatment for medical and psychiatric ailments.

After she lost the case, Rodriguez appealed, saying the trial judge should not have allowed extensive testimony from Mark, since he was not a mental health expert. She argued that he had impugned her credibility and denied her a fair trial. She also challenged the admission of details about her prior medical history.

The appellate court found Mark’s testimony unfairly biased the jury. While the doctor could testify about what he observed when examining Rodriguez, he should not have been allowed to offer his opinion about her credibility, the appellate judges ruled.

Rodriguez was taken to an emergency room after the incident and an MRI revealed a “right upper ulnar neuropathy,” which she attributed to the accident. She had a spinal cord stimulator implanted in 2013 to relieve what she described as persisting pain in her arm, along with swelling in her hands and other lingering symptoms.

A doctor testifying on her behalf said Rodriguez suffered from complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and that the condition was likely permanent.

CRPS affects a limb, usually after an injury, and is believed to be caused by damage to the peripheral and central nervous system, according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders.

Mark examined Rodriguez and described her condition as “somatization,” which he defined as "a process where individuals describe experiencing symptoms of various types that are not accompanied by objective findings and interpretations."

This doctor testified that Rodriguez screamed in pain when he touched her arm during the examination, but noted that she didn’t flinch when her partner constantly rubbed her arm to try and comfort her during the session.

Mark said he couldn’t find “anything objective aside from her subjective complaints of pains,” adding that her symptoms didn’t “make clinical sense neurologically.”

After the appellate court ruled for Rodriguez and ordered a new trial, Wal-Mart appealed to the state Supreme Court.

In a ruling issued Monday, Supreme Court judges found that Mark was qualified to speak about psychiatric matters, since testimony from experts on both sides noted significant overlap between the fields of neurology and psychiatry.

Allowing Mark to offer “possible explanations for the inconsistencies between the objective medical evidence and Rodriguez’s subjective complaints of pain was not an abuse of discretion,” the court concluded, saying it was still up to the jury to decide how much value to give Mark’s testimony.

Writing for the court in a unanimous verdict, Justice Lee Solomon also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Rodriguez’s past medical history, including psychiatric issues.

“ … CRPS is a diagnosis of exclusion that requires a treating physician to rule out all other potential causes and factors,” Solomon wrote, adding that the core issue of the case was the accuracy of that diagnosis. “Preventing Wal-Mart from pointing out plaintiff’s past medical treatment and ongoing mental health issues as possible contributing factors to her diagnosis would have been unfairly prejudicial to defendant.”

Two other people accompanied Rodriguez to the store on the day of the incident, but neither testified at trial.

No Wal-Mart employees saw what happened.

In a statement, Walmart officials praised the Supreme Court ruling.

“This decision confirms that juries should be able to consider evidence a defendant believes explains a plaintiff’s complaints of pain or disability when the objective medical evidence does not support their claims. This helps level the playing field in personal injury cases. We are pleased with the court’s decision, which reinstates a jury verdict that found Walmart was not at fault. We wish Ms. Rodriquez well.”

Matt Gray may be reached at mgray@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @MattGraySJT. Find NJ.com on Facebook. Have a tip? Tell us: nj.com/tips.

Get the latest updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.com’s newsletters.