In Borger v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1118, the trial court overturned a license suspension order by relying on an expert's testimony the intoxilyzer used in that case had "an inherent margin of error of plus or minus 0.02 percent." (Id. at p. 1121.) The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the expert's testimony "'speculative.'" (Id. at p. 1122.) "There is no disagreement that the 'Intoxilyzer 5000' is an 'approved instrument' within the meaning of California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 1221.3. The expert did not examine the machine used . . . and he offered no opinion that the machine was not in working order. . . . In reality, the expert's conclusion would 'overrule' every 'Intoxilyzer 5000' reported result unless it is 0.10 percent or more. This would change the California Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 1221 through 1221.5 and effectively remove this breath testing device from the Department of Motor Vehicle's 'approved instrument' list." (Id. at pp. 1121-1122.)