Albina Gasanbekova is an Associate at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, specializing in international disputes and litigation. She has been with the firm since August 2016. Additionally, Albina serves as the Executive Editor for ITA in Review at the Institute for Transnational Arbitration. Her prior roles include working as a Legal Consultant at The World Bank and interning at the Office of the New York State Attorney General and the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia. She holds an LL.M. in International Law and International Arbitration from Georgetown University Law Center and a Law Degree in Civil Law from the Russian Academy of Justice. Albina's career is marked by a focus on international legal matters.
When it comes to medical malpractice litigation, errors in diagnosis account for 46% of all cases. According to Ed Milstein, Partner at Dankner, Milstein & Ruffo, delays in diagnosis are particularly prevalent with cancer cases. “By far the most common type of this genre of malpractice cases involve delays in the diagnosis of cancer,” he
Case: Nichols v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. January 29, 2003 Background: In this class-action antitrust lawsuit, an econometrics expert witness was called to support a motion by the plaintiffs for class certification. Plaintiffs in this case were individuals who had paid the purchase price of Paxil for consumer use to defendant
In re: Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.July 29, 2015 Background: Plaintiffs in this case were purchasers of mushrooms who claimed that the defendant committed antitrust violations when they agreed to set minimum prices for mushrooms, and to restrict the supply of mushrooms by purchasing mushroom farms. The plaintiffs further allege that, as
In re: Chocolate Confectionery Antitrust Litigation United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.December 7, 2012 90 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 36 Background: Direct purchasers of chocolate candy products brought an action against several chocolate producers, asserting antitrust claims under Section 1 of Sherman Act and violations of state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. This is based on allegations