What is considered substantial evidence in a medical malpractice case?

The requisite inability to control behavior " 'will not be demonstrable with mathematical precision. It is enough to say that there must be proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior.' [Citation.]" (People v. Zapisek, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at

Page 30

p. 1161.) Expert testimony is considered substantial evidence if it is supported by " 'relevant probative' " facts, rather than " 'guesswork, surmise, or conjecture.' " (Id. at p. 1168.) However, we do not reweigh the evidence or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses, and "[i]f the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. [Citation.]" (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.)