How have courts interpreted expert testimony in a medical malpractice case?

First, the answer to respondent's contention this "expert" testimony dictated a different result from that reached by the magistrate is simple hornbook law. The magistrate, like any finder of facts, was not bound to accept that opinion as conclusive and could (as he apparently did) disregard such opinion if he found it to be unreasonable. We cannot say the circumstances of this case did not justify the magistrate's apparent determination that the Curran testimony was based on insubstantial reasons, had no probative value, and should be accordingly rejected. (Pen.Code, 1127b; People v. Allen (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 857, 862, 28 Cal.Rptr. 409.)