Frozen: Not Just Another Disney Princess Story?


A princess born with cryokinetic powers, locked away from the outside world for years, unleashes a deep freeze on the community when she is unveiled as queen.  If you thought this was the CliffsNotes plot summary of Disney’s Frozen, you would be partially mistaken.  Apparently, it is also the tale of a New Jersey woman.  According to a report from the New York Daily News, Isabella Tanikumi a/k/a Amy Gonzalez, has filed suit against Disney in a New Jersey federal court alleging that the entertainment giant lifted the story straight from her life. Specifically, Tanikumi alleges that the makers of Frozen stole the story, characters, plots and subplots from her two memoirs, Living My Truth and Yearnings of the Heart, which chronicle her upbringing in the Andean mountains of Peru.  Disney, however, has previously claimed that Frozen is loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen’s 1844 fairy tale “The Snow Queen.” Tanikumi obviously isn’t buying it, as she is seeking $250 million in damages.

We here at Abnormal Use have admittedly never read either of Tanikumi’s memoirs.  Nonetheless, our guess is that this lawsuit falls more into the realm of absurd than it does Queen v. Vanilla Ice.  Anyone who has viewed the film would certainly question how the story of an ice princess and a talking snowman could possibly have ripped off a Peruvian memoir.  As reported by, the suit alleges the following as parallels between the films:

— Both the memoirs and “Frozen” feature two sisters, one of whom causes the other to be injured and then hides herself away because she feels shame.

— Both live in a village or town at the foot of snow-covered mountains, the suit alleges.

— The sisters are brought closer by a terrible accident — an earthquake in the memoirs and a storm in “Frozen.”

— The above-mentioned accidents result in the deaths of loved ones.

— In the memoirs, one of the sisters has suitors named Hans and Cristoff and in “Frozen” Anna develops romantic attachments to men named Hans and Kristoff.

These allegations appear to be more coincidental rather than deliberate attempt at a rip-off.  Even the most specific example, the names of the male characters, loses traction when you consider the adaptation from Hans Christian Anderson and the film’s Scandinavian setting.  While Disney is obviously a huge outfit with tons of resources, we highly doubt that its writers were scouring through self-published memoirs for their next big idea. Looking into our crystal ball, our guess is that this lawsuit will melt quicker than Olaf on a summer’s beach. Tanikumi may finally have someone purchase her memoirs off of Amazon due to the publicity, but she won’t see a dime from Disney.  And, then, when all is said and done, Tanikumi releases a Peruvian version of “Let It Go” only to be sued by Disney for copyright infringement.  We can only dream.

CPSC Continues The Flogging of Desktop Magnets

Over the last several years, we here at Abnormal Use have documented the controversial saga of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) and its battle against the manufacturers of desktop magnets.  The witch hunt against those spherical magnets has now taken a new turn, and as chroniclers of this epic tale, we must pause to take note. Last week, the CPSC voted to pass a final rule addressing the alleged dangers of desktop magnets.  You can read the 207-page rule here.  Essentially, the rule establishes a new standard: If a magnet set contains a magnet that fits within the CPSC’s small parts cylinder, each magnet in the magnet set must have a flux index of 50 kG2 mm2 or less.  Magnetic flux is the average magnetic field times the perpendicular area that it penetrates.  In other words, flux is how “strong” the magnet is.  With the new CPSC ruling, magnet sets with small magnets must have less flux.  Sounds good, we suppose.

We don’t have any problems with the CPSC attempting to protect consumers.  After all, it is its job.  We are shocked, however, that desktop magnets have been the Ace of Spades on the CPSC’s hit list for the last several years.  The CPSC has apparently received reports of 1 death and 2,900 incidents of magnet ingestion.  Certainly not numbers to ignore, but cause for a public spectacle of this magnitude? Presumably, far more dangerous products have entered the stream of commerce without catching the gaze of the CPSC.  Maybe the CPSC really did see desktop magnets as a matter of upmost importance.  Or, maybe it was Buckyballs CEO Mark Zucker’s public mockery of the CPSC’s logic that fueled the fire.  We will let you be the judge. Whatever the case, we urge you to read the CPSC’s 207-page order the next time you are looking for a little light reading.  It traces the CPSC’s plight and gives you the rare opportunity to probe the motives of a powerful federal agency.  Of particular note, play close attention to what the CPSC says about product warnings (you know, the very thing Zucker mocked).  Specifically, the CPSC states:

A possible alternative to the rule would be to require warnings with or on magnet sets. As discussed in the NPR preamble and in response to comments set forth in section E of this preamble, it is unlikely that warnings on the packages of magnet sets would significantly reduce the ingestion-related injuries caused by high-powered magnets. Safety and warnings literature consistently identifies warnings as a less effective hazard- control measure than eliminating the hazard through design or guarding the consumer from a hazard. Warnings do not prevent consumer exposure to the hazard but rely on persuading consumers to alter their behavior in some way to avoid the hazard. . . .

Even if warnings could effectively communicate the ingestion hazard, the consequences of ingesting magnets, and appropriate hazard-avoidance measures, warnings still may not be effective if consumers do not concur with the content of the warning. . . .

So, let’s get this straight.  According to the CPSC, warnings don’t work.  Even if they could, the consumer may not agree with the warned-about hazard.  As such, we should just take an alleged hazardous product out of the marketplace rather than use them.  Huh?  Tell that to all of those product manufacturers who have been found liable in civil suits due to a failure to warn.  The modicum of the CPSC’s logic is that even the best warnings may be ignored by consumers.  We get that.  But, it ignores the whole concept of common sense and self-policing.  It is true that young children may be unable to read and appreciate a product warning, but where do the parents come into play?  Don’t have Buckyballs at the house if you have small children.  Problem solved.  No reason to resort to the multi-year draconian campaign.

While this latest development is a final ruling of the CPSC, we doubt that this is the last chapter in the saga. Even when new desktop magnets emerge in compliance with the rule, the CPSC will undoubtedly find something to complain about.  And, we will be right here to write about it.

Friday Links


“You have the right to remain silent! Anything you say can and will be used against you!” a law enforcement official advises Superman, who foolishly decides to waive those rights immediately. “I’m guilty!” Superman exclaims. Um, perhaps he should have retained counsel? This scene comes from the cover of Action Comics #556, published way, way back in 1984, but certainly long enough after the Warren Court jurisprudence for Supes to be aware that he shouldn’t make such declarations of guilt. Oh, my.

Well, it appears that a 2012 post made Reddit last week. How about that?

Don’t forget: You can follow Abnormal Use on Facebook here and on Twitter here. Drop us a line sometime, will you?

Our favorite legal tweet of late (dealing with signature lines in lawyer emails):

Pharmaceutical Companies Sued Over Marketing Of Pain Killers

Painkiller abuse has  become a big problem in the past decade, and now, three governmental entities are seeking to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible.  The City of Chicago and two California counties have filed separate lawsuits alleging that “aggressive marketing” by several pharmaceutical companies has purportedly led to addiction and abuse of painkillers by their taxpayers.  The named defendants are Jansen Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma, Actavis, Endo Health Solutions Inc., and Cephalon. The core allegation in these suits is that the companies fraudulently downplayed the known risks of painkiller addiction in their marketing materials, which allegedly misled the public and led physicians to overprescribe the drugs.  This conduct allegedly costs taxpayers and the government millions of dollars in the form of unnecessary prescriptions and emergency medical care.  The City of Chicago’s complaint alleges that in Chicago alone there were over 1,000 ER visits attributable to painkiller abuse in 2009.

These lawsuits are an interesting attempt to regulate, through litigation, what is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States.  Matters relating to prescription drugs typically fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA.  Moreover, federal laws and regulations already require that pharmaceutical promotional materials must be supported by substantial scientific evidence and must reflect a “fair balance” in describing the benefits and risks of the drugs.  See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. 352(a); 21 C.F.R. 201(e)(g).

Not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical companies are already angling to dismiss these lawsuits.  Earlier this month, they moved to dismiss the City of Chicago’s complaint on, among other grounds,  the ground that this matter should be decided by the FDA under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  The primary jurisdiction doctrine is a judicial doctrine whereby a court tends to favor allowing an agency an initial opportunity to decide an issue in a case in which the court and the agency have concurrent jurisdiction.

Abnormal Interviews: Actress Roma Maffia from Disclosure and Double Jeopardy


Today, Abnormal Use continues its series, “Abnormal Interviews,” in which this site will conduct interviews with law professors, practitioners, and makers of legal-themed pop culture. As you might recall, we here at Abnormal Use have been fortunate to interview individuals in the entertainment industry who have participated in legally themed television shows and films.  We have interviewed Phil Morris, the actor who played the flamboyant attorney, Jackie Chiles, in “Seinfeld,” as well as the late, great James Rebhorn, who played, among many other roles, the FBI expert witness in My Cousin Vinny. We recently had the opportunity to speak with actress Roma Maffia, who has appeared in a spate of blockbuster films and television series, including Disclosure, Double Jeopardy, “Nip/Tuck,” “Boston Legal,” “Law & Order,” “Profiler,” and Nick of Time, to name just a few. She has played a lawyer or judge in many of these roles. A fun historical note: Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the release of Double Jeopardy, a film in which she played a jailhouse lawyer dispensing advice to Ashley Judd’s character.  (You remember the crazy premise: If she has been wrongfully convicted of a murder that never occurred, then double jeopardy would prevent her prosecution for later murdering the purported original victim.). Additionally, this December 4 will be the twentieth anniversary of the release of Disclosure, the Michael Crichton sexual harassment thriller in which she played a lawyer advising the Michael Douglas character in his dispute with his employer. The interview is as follows:


Kyle White: Were you aware that the anniversaries were coming up for those movies?

Roma Maffia: Well, I wasn’t. It’s pretty shocking. No, I wasn’t.



RM: None!  . . . [I]n New York, I didn’t do much television or film, but I acted the role of the character who would be arrested by the police, such as a prostitute or a drug addict, or some kind of felon as opposed to a lawyer.

KW: Interesting.

RM: It’s after I did Disclosure . . . . Well, you know, you get type cast. So, because it was Disclosure, all of a sudden I became the lawyer. . . . . I did do research on the movie, but before the movie? No, I had nothing to do with law.

KW: So, you are saying that Disclosure was the first time you had been involved with acting as a lawyer or a judge?

RM: First time, absolutely, first time!


RM: On those roles as lawyers, any role, pretty much, I’m sure myself, like a lot of actors, do a lot of research. So, I’ve been very fortunate to have really great people. Also, when I did Disclosure, it was fantastic because it was the big case of the football player that was televised.

KW: The O.J. Simpson trial?

RM: Yes. So, I got to watch all day of the trial. So I got to watch Marcia [Clark], the female lawyer, sort of be my role model for Disclosure. For Double Jeopardy, I also had legal help and advice, [and I] went to a prison in L.A. So, I’ve been very lucky to have lawyers help me or forensic pathologists. Everyone in a specific field is very, very helpful. So, all the lawyers that have helped me have been very generous with their time and have taught me quite a lot.

KW: That’s great. Is there any lawyer in particular . . . who has helped you in preparing for your roles, or have you just sort of talked with a different lawyer each time?

RM: I’ve talked with different lawyers each time.


KW: That is interesting to know that you dealt directly with the legal community.

RM: Very much so, yes. I actually thought with the amount of lawyers I played, I was going to get some kind of degree or something. Is that possible?

KW: [Laughter] You should, you definitely should!

RM: I should!


RM: Well, I had done The Paper with Ron Howard before, where I played a reporter. But it was my first really large role, and I loved the subject matter because, at the time, it was a big hoo ha that sexual harassment had not been addressed in film. And then that it should be addressed with the man that is a victim caused an interesting stir. But, just that the topic was so – everyone on the set was so impassioned by this topic. It was also a time, when, you know, computers and how they were used in offices, and the mixture of a computer and send[ing] messages in code. It was very exciting. The whole concept of the sexual harassment; and, I think some people were like, “Oh I didn’t even realize man could be sexually harassed, even if he is the boss.” I think it addressed lots of elements that were surprising . . . .


RM: . . . I was on a jury . . . [I]t was the first time I really understood, or got an inkling, like I said, about how specific the law is to . . . that it was frustrating.

KW: That’s interesting. I’m curious, on what kind of jury did you serve?

RM: It was a mother who had killed her four year old daughter.

KW: Oh, wow, that’s a tough one to sit through.

RM: Oh, my god, I begged. You know, it was funny because the judge, it was in Los Angeles, and the judge recognized me from wherever. He sort of made fun, like is this the way you imagined it when you do your film or television? I was like, “No, no, no, it’s not!” I didn’t want to do that case, but just in that case, and I guess because it was real life, so the stakes were very different. How we couldn’t get what we wanted for the punishment for the mother to be. So, because of what seemed like minutia, but anyway, I know, it’s no. But that, I found very difficult and frustrating.

KW: . . . [W]hen did that happen in your professional career?

RM: It happened about seven years ago. When I was there, Pat Boone was also serving on a jury.

KW: Really?

RM: Yes, He was in court outside having lunch at the public lunch table. Which was pretty funny, I thought.


KW: Any legal roles you have played since your jury duty experience that the experience on the jury has shaped? If so, how?

RM: [T]he one thing is less is more. That’s the one thing I take away from my jury experience and also talking to lawyers about what a witness is to or not to say.

KW: . . . What exactly do you mean there? That sounds like good advice for practicing attorneys.

RM: I just meant that it’s, instead of going on, just answer the question, without leaving room for any interpretation of the answer. No interpretation, just the answer. Simple, “Yes,” “No.” You know, I think it’s human nature to go, “No, but I saw this,” and not realizing you’ve opened up another topic that you weren’t aware that you did. Now we go down another rabbit hole. Does that make sense?

KW: Exactly. And you’ve touched on probably one of our frustrations encountered in the practice of law – getting witnesses to understand that; to simply answer the question.

RM: Yes, I think it’s a thing you think you’re talking to your parents or the principal and the more you talk, the more they are going to understand your dilemma without understanding the more you talk the more you are setting up a dilemma.


KW: . . . You’ve played, some major characters in some huge television shows and other movies. You’ve been in “Boston Legal.” You’ve been in “Law & Order.” You’ve been in “The Sopranos.” You’ve been in “ER” and recently. You played in the hit series “Nip/Tuck” and played a huge role in that. Which one of your roles that you played in the past has been your favorite role and why?

RM: That’s such an interesting question. I think because. . . Each one has their own uniqueness that I will remember. But definitely, Disclosure, because it was an eye-opener into a whole other world of film. I learned a lot about film, which I had not known or been introduced to. But Liz on “Nip/Tuck” was being an anesthesiologist and learning all those things, a little like people generous to teach me was. That’s what it is. It’s just so fascinating to be able to enter into all these worlds and just learn just a little bit of something. So I have to say, Liz on “Nip/Tuck.” I’d have to say on “Profiler,” my character was a forensic pathologist. And, I loved that. It was fascinating; pathology and crime, and honoring the dead. So many of them. Yet, there are roles that I do that have been plays that are comedies that I enjoy. So, it’s hard to pinpoint because I could go through my resume and go “Oh, no, I love that one, too.” I’ve just forgotten what I did. So, for now, those ones pop out. Oh, and I loved the character in Nick of Time. She was fantastic. So, yes. It’s hard to say.

Lessons Learned in Small Claims Court – Where Real Lawyers are Made

We here at Abnormal Use handle a variety of cases, big and small. While it may be the “bet the company” cases that grab the headlines, we have found that small claims court litigation creates the most memorable experiences. With no discovery, no court is less predictable. As you might recall, we have previously offered some helpful observations during our tireless days in the world of small claims. Always at your service, we would like to share a few more of those maxims with you.

1. Check your motion practice at the door. No explanation needed.

2. When the court begins explaining legal principles to a pro se litigant, just go with the flow. If the court addresses the litigant directly, things are going in your favor. Don’t mess it up.

3. Don’t make light of the experience. While some may argue that the appellate level is where “real” lawyering takes place, those people clearly have never stepped foot in a small claims court. The informality of the process can certainly be challenging, but in no other court can a lawyer learn to think on his or her feet in quite such a fashion. Often times, we get so caught up in the rigid rules of litigation that we lose sight of those skills that drove us into the legal field in the first place – creativity, logical thinking, analytics, public speaking. In small claims court, those core skills are your best friend.

Regardless of your number of years of practice, cherish each of your experience in small claims court. At the end of your career, you will find that those experiences are the ones that developed your skills as a lawyer. And, gave you the stories you will remember.

Worker Injury Reporting Requirements Revised by OSHA


The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has recently issued several rule changes, including the reporting requirements for workplace injuries.  The previous regulation required the employer to notify OSHA “[w]ithin eight (8) hours after the death of any employee from a work-related incident or the in-patient hospitalization of three or more employees as a result of a work-related incident.” 29 C.F.R. § 1904.39(a). Effective January 1, 2015, employers are required “to report all work-related in-patient hospitalizations, as well as amputations and losses of an eye, to OSHA within 24 hours of the event.” See Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements—NAICS Update and Reporting Revisions, 79 FR 56130-01.

The rule revision comes on the heels of the National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2013 (Preliminary Results) issued by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, on September 11, 2014.  The census found that while fatal work injuries were down from 4,628 in 2012, there were still 4,405 fatal work injuries in 2013. Following the census results, the Secretary of Labor, Thomas E. Perez, issued a statement expressing disappointment with the number of fatal work injuries. “We can and must do better. Job gains in oil and gas and construction have come with more fatalities, and that is unacceptable,” said Perez.

Other rule changes for employers to be aware of include:

All employers covered by OSHA, even those exempt from maintaining injury and illness records, are required to comply with the new OSHA severe injury and illness reporting requirements.

OSHA is developing an web-based option for employers to report incidents electronically in addition to the phone reporting options.

Based on the census, the list of industries exempted from the requirement to routinely keep injury and illness records has been updated. The previous list of exempt industries was based on the old Standard Industrial Classification system and the new rule uses the North American Industry Classification System to classify establishments by industry. (Note: Any employer with 10 or fewer employees, regardless of their industry classification, is exempt from the record keeping rule.)

For readers unfamiliar with OSHA, OSHA provides a number of helpful publications, including an “All About OSHA” brochure located here.

(Hat Tip: Claims Journal).

Friday Links


So, Superman says, “Robots of the jury, you cannot condemn Luthor for a crime against your world. Despite his evil past, he is innocent! And I will prove it with the next witness!” And then Luthor thinks to himself, “Superman must be mad to defend me! All the evidence proves I’m guilty!” So, that’s the dialogue on the cover of Action Comics #292, published way, way back in 1962. Now, perhaps things are different with robot juries on other planets, but considering his history on Earth, why is Supes volunteering to meet a burden of proof here? Doesn’t the robot society value the presumption of innocence? What gives? And by the way, who is Superman’s next witness? Surely, it’s not Luthor himself?

Apparently, according to this tweet, someone at the Conference of Government Mining Attorneys this week dissed the movie Armageddon!

If you’re a reader of this site, you may know that we maintain a Facebook page for this blog. You can find that here. Guess what? We here at Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. have now also established a Facebook account for the firm more generally. You can access that you Facebook page here. We hope you’ll check it out.

Our favorite legal tweet of late:

Fixodent Lawsuit Has No Teeth: Eleventh Circuit Court Affirms Dismissal On Daubert Grounds

On a roll recently, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against Proctor and Gamble brought by a woman claiming that she suffered from a neurological condition caused by Fixodent, a denture adhesive. The lawsuit was dismissed on the ground that Plaintiff could not prove causation because her experts were not reliable under Daubert

One of the main components of Fixodent is zinc.  Plaintiff alleged that the zinc blocked her body’s ability to use copper, leading to a neurological condition known as copper-deficiency myelopathy.  According to Plaintiff, she started to develop symptoms after using up to four tubes of Fixodent per week for eight years.

Plaintiff sought to prove causation primarily through four expert witnesses (all physicians), who would have testified generally whether Fixodent could cause copper-deficiency myelopathy. However, the trial court refused to allow such testimony, finding that Plaintiff’s experts did not use reliable methodologies because they failed to show any scientific evidence as to how much Fixodent must be used, and for how long it must be used, to cause a purported copper deficiency.  Moreover, the experts in question failed to show how long that copper deficiency condition must last in order to place someone at risk for developing copper-deficiency myelopathy.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s decision to dismiss the case at the summary judgment stage.

The case is Chapman v. Procter & Gamble Distributing, LLC, — F.3d —- (11th Cir. September 11, 2014).

Seventh Circuit Finds Statute Of Repose Bars Products Action Involving Muzzleloader Rifle Purchased In 1994

As you know, we here at Abnormal Use love writing and blogging, so much so that our editor Jim Dedman is now contributing posts to other online venues.  Recently, his piece, “Seventh Circuit Finds Statute Of Repose Bars Products Action Involving Muzzleloader Rifle Purchased In 1994,” was published by DRI’s “Strictly Speaking” products liability newsletter.

Here’s the first two paragraphs:

Rejecting a Plaintiff’s negligence and strict liability claims in a case involving a muzzleloader rifle, the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed an Indiana federal district court’s grant of summary judgment on statute of repose grounds. Hartman v. EBSCO Indus., Inc., — F.3d —-, No. 13–3398, 2014 WL 3360799 (7th Cir. July 10, 2014). In so doing, the Seventh Circuit analyzed the two exceptions to Indiana’s ten year statute of repose and found that neither allowed the Plaintiff to bring claims involving a 2008 accident involving a LK–93 Wolverine muzzleloader first purchased in 1994.

For fourteen years, the Plaintiff had used his muzzleloader rifle (the somewhat complicated inner workings of which the Seventh Circuit explained in detail). In fact, he estimated he had fired it between 500 and 600 times prior to his November 2008 accident. His father had purchased and given to him the original rifle in 1994, but in 2008, the Plaintiff purchased a Knight 209 Primer Extreme Conversion Kit, an accessory designed to “deliver a hotter spark and thereby ignite Pyrodex pellets more reliably.” Plaintiff installed the kit himself.

To read the rest of the piece, please click here.