In Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 493, the plaintiff awoke from liver surgery with tremendous shoulder pain that required nerve-repair surgery. He sued both the surgeon and the anesthesiologist, claiming they somehow mishandled him while he was sedated. At issue were the defense declarations of three medical experts, including one of the defendants, who believed the defendants fully complied with the standard of care and therefore did not harm the plaintiff. In that context, the court held it was not conclusory for the experts to declare, based on their expertise and review of the records, that there was no evidence of medical malpractice. Such opinions were "significantly different than one that concludes that the standard of care has not been met resulting in an injury, but fails to give a reasoned explanation, based on facts and not on speculation, of why the expert has come to those conclusions." (Id. at p. 509.) In that case, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action, alleging that immediately after a gall bladder operation, he began having pain in his left shoulder. (Id. at p. 497.) The defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting declarations to the effect that nothing had happened during the operation that could cause the shoulder injury and that such an injury could occur in the absence of any known cause. (Id. at pp. 498-501.) In opposition, the plaintiff filed two doctors' declarations, both stating that "'his injury . . . occurred more probably than not from either a traumatic injury such as dropping the patient or from improper positioning of the patient or stretching of the extremity and but for the negligence of one of his care providers this injury would not have occurred.'" (Id. at pp. 503-504.) The appellate court held that the doctors' declarations "were of no evidentiary value on the question of negligence or causation." (Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 511.) "The difficulty that plaintiff encounters . . . is that there is no evidence that plaintiff was dropped, that he was improperly positioned, or that his arm was stretched during the procedure or recovery. The doctors assume the cause from the fact of the injury. Their opinions are nothing more than a statement that the injury could have been caused by defendants' negligence in one of the ways they specify. But, 'an expert's opinion that something could be true if certain assumed facts are true, without any foundation for concluding those assumed facts exist' , has no evidentiary value. " (Id. at p. 510.) "And we note that plaintiff presented no evidence to suggest that an injury such as the one he suffered was rare or unusual in the absence of negligence." (Id. at p. 511.) Justice Sims dissented, stating: "We do not have to set aside our common sense so as to forget that the damage to plaintiff's shoulder first manifested itself on the morning following his abdominal surgery when plaintiff was in the hospital. Thus, . . . it may be the case that 'these things just happen' but the thing that happened to plaintiff just happened to happen when plaintiff was in the hospital for abdominal surgery. This is, of course, a wholly remarkable coincidence." (Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 516 dis. opn. of Sims, J..) Determining that the improvement of judo skills required the plaintiff to attempt the maneuver while increasing the speed each time, the court stated, "Absent evidence of recklessness, or other risk-increasing conduct, liability should not be imposed simply because an instructor asked the student to take action beyond what, with hindsight, is found to have been the student's abilities." Bushnell, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at page 532.