With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. In arriving at this conclusion, the court stated: It is important to recognize [the Iowa] rule governing the discovery of experts distinguishes between facts and opinions of experts which were derived prior to being retained as an expert and those acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Only those opinions and facts acquired by an expert in anticipation of litigation or for trial are subject to discovery under our rule. The rule does not preclude an expert from testifying to facts and opinions derived prior to being retained as an expert. Thus, the testimony of a treating physician is generally not subject to ... discovery procedures!.] Id. at 611-12 (internal citations omitted). See also Day by Ostby v. McIlrath, 469 N.W.2d 676, 677 (Iowa 1991) (<HOLDING>); Rogers v. Detroit Edison Co., 328 F.Supp.2d

A: holding testimony of a treating physician is not subject to discovery procedures under the iowa rule governing discovery of experts be cause the treating physicians mental impressions and opinions were not acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial
B: holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations
C: holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician
D: holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
A.