What is the test for substantial evidence in a medical malpractice case?

evidence." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 261.) Under the substantial evidence rule, we must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. (Ibid.) Thus, reversal of the judgment is not warranted if the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, even though we, as the reviewing court, might have reached a contrary finding from these facts. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1054.)