What is the test for admitting or excluding expert testimony in a medical malpractice case?

Regarding expert testimony, "[a]n expert may give opinion testimony '[r]elated to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact.' (Evid. Code, 801, subd. (a).)" (People v. Brown (2014) 59 Cal.4th 86, 101.) " 'The trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude expert testimony [citation], and its decision as to whether expert testimony meets the standard for admissibility is subject to review for abuse of discretion.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

Page 12

"Of course, only relevant evidence is admissible [citation], and relevance is defined as 'having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action' [citation]. The trial court has broad discretion to determine the relevance of evidence [citation], and we will not disturb the court's exercise of that discretion unless it acted in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner [citation]." (People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 947.)