Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Visa

  • Expert Testimony Limited in Identity Theft Credit Reporting Dispute

    Expert Testimony Limited in Identity Theft Credit Reporting Dispute

    Oleksandr Panchenko, a Ukrainian national, first entered the U.S. in 2009 on a J-1 visa and received a Social Security Number. He lived intermittently in the U.S. until 2019, then returned permanently in April 2023 for work.

    In May 2023, he discovered over $120,000 in fraudulent accounts on his credit report, including unauthorized cards, bank accounts, addresses, and employment records from periods when he was outside the U.S., confirmed by travel records. He reported the identity theft to Mountain View police, filed an FTC affidavit, and disputed the accounts with multiple banks and credit bureaus. Despite supporting evidence, the institutions allegedly failed to investigate or correct the inaccuracies.

    As a result, false debts remained, leading to denied credit, higher deposits, and emotional and financial harm. To counter Comenity’s expert, Panchenko disclosed Douglas A. Hollon, a credit reporting professional, as his rebuttal expert witness.

    Credit Reporting Expert Witness

    Douglas A. Hollon is the Owner of Credit Experts of North Texas, LLC and has worked in the consumer reporting industry since 2005. At Experian, he handled escalated credit disputes for attorneys, regulators, and government agencies, served as Government Liaison, and testified as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness in about 20 Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) cases.

    He has extensive expertise in identity theft disputes, credit bureau operations, credit scoring, and industry standards for FCRA compliance. Qualified as an expert in federal and state courts, Hollon holds a B.S. in Business Finance and multiple certifications in credit analysis, risk modeling, scorecard development, and lending compliance.

    Want to know more about the challenges Douglas A. Hollon has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.  

    Discussion by the Court

    Proper Rebuttal

    The Court found that Hollon’s opinion on the adequacy of Comenity’s investigation was proper rebuttal to Ulzheimer’s testimony. Both experts reviewed ACDV forms and addressed whether Comenity’s investigation met industry standards. However, Hollon’s opinion that Panchenko was a victim of identity theft did not rebut Ulzheimer’s report and thus was untimely.

    Exclusion of Identity Theft Opinion

    Because Panchenko had asserted identity theft from the outset, he had ample opportunity to timely disclose expert testimony on the issue. The late disclosure was neither justified nor harmless, as it deprived Comenity of a chance to prepare a counter-expert. Accordingly, the Court excluded Hollon’s identity theft opinion.

    Expert Qualifications

    Comenity argued Hollon lacked qualifications because his background was with a consumer reporting agency, not a furnisher. The Court disagreed, finding Hollon’s 19 years in the credit reporting industry and his experience handling tens of thousands of identity theft disputes sufficient to qualify him as an expert on FCRA investigations and industry standards.

    Legal Conclusions and Terminology

    The Court emphasized that experts may not offer legal conclusions. While Hollon could critique Comenity’s investigation, he could not characterize it as “unreasonable” under the FCRA, as that term has a distinct legal meaning. Instead, he must explain inadequacies in practical terms without invoking legal standards.

    Sufficiency of Facts and Data

    The Court rejected Comenity’s claim that Hollon relied on insufficient facts. As a rebuttal expert, Hollon was not required to conduct his own investigation but could rely on his expertise to critique Ulzheimer’s analysis. Any perceived gaps affected the weight, not admissibility, of his testimony.

    Held

    The Court partially granted Comenity’s motion, excluding Hollon’s identity theft opinion and barring use of FCRA legal terms, but allowing him to rebut Comenity’s investigation and industry standards.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court limited Douglas Hollon’s testimony, excluding his opinion that Panchenko was a victim of identity theft and restricting use of legal terms like “reasonable” under the FCRA. However, Hollon remains qualified to testify as a rebuttal expert on industry standards and the adequacy of Comenity’s investigation, ensuring the jury hears his critique while preventing him from offering legal conclusions or untimely opinions.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Panchenko V. Comenity Cap. Bank
    Docket Number: 5:23cv4965
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
    Order Date: August 13, 2025
  • Expert Testimony on Future Economic Losses Did Not Rely on Improper Assumptions

    Expert Testimony on Future Economic Losses Did Not Rely on Improper Assumptions

    This case concerns a maritime personal injury sustained by a Mexican citizen, who was legally working in the United States on a seasonal H-2B visa. To assess damages, Espinoza hired AsherMeyers, LLC, a dispute advisory and forensic accounting firm, to calculate his economic losses, which include his future loss of earning capacity, fringe benefits, and found.

    Subsequently, partners Harold A. Asher and Jeffrey E. Meyers issued a joint report in which they opined that, based on Espinoza’s work-life expectancy of 7.5 years and his pre-incident earning capacity of $29,105 per year, his “loss of economic capacity” — which includes lost wages, fringe benefits, and found — totals $274,082.

    In response, Westbank Fishing, LLC filed an instant motion in limine seeking to exclude or limit Asher and Meyers’s testimony, arguing that it is speculative because it does not account for the fact that Espinoza was a seasonal worker who had an H-2B visa for the 2023 fishing season.

    Accounting Expert Witness

    Harold Alan Asher is a Certified Public Accountant. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, its Forensic and Valuation Services Section and the Louisiana Society of Certified Public Accountants.

    Notably, Asher was designated a Certified Fraud Examiner by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners in February 1995 and a Certified Valuation Analyst by the National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts in December 1995.

    Throughout his career, he has served as a consultant and testified in a wide range of complex matters including commercial damages, lost profits, valuations fraud, personal injury damages, matrimonial disputes, business interruption claims, accounting malpractice, securities and FINRA disputes, breach of fiduciary duties and intellectual property infringement.

    Want to know more about the challenges Harold A. Asher has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Valuation Expert Witness

    Jeffrey E. Meyers was designated a Certified Valuation Analyst by the National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts in May 2009 and a Master Analyst in Financial Forensics cosponsored by the National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts as of July 2010.

    In addition, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners designated Meyers a Certified Fraud Examiner in February 2011. Meyers is a member of the National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners and the American Statistical Association.

    He is routinely involved in a variety of complex issues relating to commercial damages, lost profits, personal injury damages, matrimonial disputes, business interruption claims, intellectual property impairment and fraud.

    Get the full story on challenges to Jeffrey E. Meyers’ expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    In this case, Westbank did not challenge Asher’s or Meyers’s qualifications or the methodology they used to formulate their opinions. Instead, it argued that the experts improperly assumed Espinoza would have continued working in the United States, pointing to Westbank’s own inability to secure H-2B visas every year.

    However, this argument overlooked the fact that Espinoza had previously worked legally in the U.S. under H-2B visas for other employers. The mere possibility that Westbank might not have been able to hire him in a future year did not preclude the likelihood that another fishing company could have done so.

    Moreover, Westbank failed to cite — and the Court was unaware of — any authority holding that an economic expert’s testimony must be excluded or limited as speculative simply because it assumed a foreign worker, with a documented history of lawful U.S. employment, could continue working legally in the United States in future years.

    After considering Asher and Meyers’s report and credentials alongside Westbank’s objections, the Court concluded that their education and experience qualified them to offer opinions on Espinoza’s future economic losses.

    Held

    The Court denied Westbank’s motion in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Harold A. Asher and Jeffrey E. Meyers.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court saw no reason to disqualify the experts’ projections. In fact, it found no precedent requiring exclusion of economic loss testimony simply because it assumes that a legally employed foreign worker could stay in the workforce.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Espinoza V. Westbank Fishing, LLC
    Docket Number: 2:23cv6204
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
    Order Date: July 08, 2025