In Moore v. Kantha, 312 N.J. Super. 365, 711 A.2d 967 (App.Div.1998), the Court held that, absent unusual circumstances, a party should not be permitted to offer proofs in the form of opinions rendered by an adversary's expert in depositions. Moore involved a malpractice case in which the plaintiff contended that the defendant doctor mailed the plaintiff a prescription for medication to be used in treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia without adequate instruction or supervision. Id. at 370, 711 A.2d 967. The Court found unusual circumstances existed, because the defendant's expert was the leading proponent of the rare treatment and the only physician to study its effects and actually render treatment involving the medication in question. Id. at 377, 711 A.2d 967. In permitting the plaintiff to use defendant's expert deposition, we pointed out that the expert "was not one of the 'cottage industry' experts . . ." but "the only other expert who had actually utilized the treatment." Ibid.