waiver in the two dr choice rule dearie aren't really involves two parts and the first is father not the employer was a surprise and the second is whether or not the entire deposition should have been stricken as opposed to only striking the cause ation opinion as the lower courts found so as to the issue of surprise there were two leading cases really that addressed this issue and that would be the case of home right in the case here and the home  case the court found that he employer was not surprised because it had knowledge of the treatment and condition for which the doctor would be testifying and also how does the records that the doctor generated as a result of that treatment  employer could not argue that it was a surprise for her in the doctor's testimony even though the doctor didn't offer an actual narrative report it is a case of the doctor my case the doctor did offer and there never forget november two thousand and eleven process understanding at this camp was that through september of two thousand and ten there was minimal treatment and then after that we knew he moved to florida and we didn't have any of the medical and that was the better of two thousand and eleven and we didn't have any other most of the records that we didn't know that he had really continued treatment so the fact that he continued treatment and that data fact that the doctor was able to then to pass it to his condition still existed and was in fact worse that's a different causation opinion altogether it's a different analysis that the doctor peaceably h to undertake after his examination if he didn't have that examination he would only have talked about what the treatment was up to september of two thousand and ten and at that point a physician who wasn't even diagnosed with my lap if my memory serves me correctly that wasn't until later it was basically an aggravated cervical strain condition that required treatment and then mr barnes moved in he basically stopped treating so when he went when dr brecker evaluated him in two thousand while everything sort of changed because god what is it in testimony it's you it's really difficult to just a limited to treatment through that date because the doctors talking about the progression of a condition that it we'll find out they were titian or had so and you can't really piecemeal that by saying well this is going to stay and we're going to strike everything out so we're with it was a pretty good approach is to me was that the deposition was taken under false pretenses i mean we were under the impression the doctor was going to testify regarding treatment that wasn't disputed when it came to light that he was testifying regarding depend on the facts and how it was erroneous and he admitted i mean i think that as a matter of fairness and policy there are certain types of conduct that shouldn't be tolerated and if its attorneys are allowed to spring a surprise on other attorneys and treatment after that deposition so we were lost that he lost that opportunity and that's really it i guess with respect to surprise and i mean you guys you know i mean i know you're all very aware of the home out you know the accident histories are in dispute or the mechanism of injuries and disputed those are generally things that are cursed out on their quest for hearing from an arm b not aware of so we get to florida  your town from florida and so on dr brown or four days before the deposition the i didn't know what dr brokers recommendations were i didn't get in medical records we didn't have normal exam he complained he had some problems with the neck but there's no ridiculous pain where when counsel said dr anderson the carline were so rising the medical care it came across really deposition in testify simply doesn't change his opinion on cross exam direct examination by the cross examination i asked him will let me see the transcript that you look at for dr berger and there's only five or six whether it was due to the prior surgery they withheld the information from their expert that could have allowed their expert to know exactly dr brown his opinion was and you know the information in the seems to be needs to give an opinion to pull everything together if you take the most relevant information and take it over to their position transcript and withhold it from him and ask for made it does not appear that it was related to the prior function because if you were singing it again it was held at the vet's office visit from four days prior to the accident in the information they provided him he never saw that ammunition or regarding that fact that petitioner was not seeking the treatment that was authorized because you're not seeking the treatment that was authorized or made about it in terms of the withholding a future care that the doctor needed to address during that i mean two thousand and twelve so we didn't go back to the past that point is after anderson already reviewed the medical treatment in the past and provided to him that he believed this current condition was related to the prior t