In Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 747 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2014), the district court had held that the expert medical testimony proffered in support of the plaintiff’s case was not sufficiently reliable under Daubert because it rested in large measure on the expert’s clinical experience. Thus, it granted summary judgment in defendant’s favor. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court observed that the plaintiff’s expert opinion rested on a differential diagnosis he made based on substantial clinical experience. Noting that although “medicine partakes of art as well as science,” the court held “there is nothing wrong with a doctor relying on extensive clinical experience when making a differential diagnosis.” As a consequence, the testimony was admissible, and thus, summary judgment in favor of the defendant could not be sustained.