Moore v. Regents Of The University Of California

51 Cal. 3d 120, 793 P.2d 479, cert. denied 499 U.S. 936 (1991)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Moore (P) was treated at UCLA Medical Center for hairy cell leukemia. Golde (D) was the doctor who treated P. Blood, bone marrow and other bodily substances were withdrawn from P. D recommended that D's spleen be removed to help slow the spread of the disease. Tests revealed that P's cells were unusually useful in genetic research. D removed various tissues, blood, and P's spleen without informing P of the true nature of D's interests. After the operation, P was told that he would need follow up treatment and tests. D also told P that he would have to continue treatment at the UCLA center because there was no other location that could attend to his needs. This was a lie. P underwent seven years of these follow-up tests during which blood and tissue were repeatedly taken from P. P imagined that these treatments were a necessary part of his healing process. D retained P’s spleen for research without P’s knowledge or consent and conducted extensive research and development. D then developed and patented a cell line from P's cells and licensed them for commercial development. The commercial rights were substantial and included cash payments and options on stocks on the companies the rights were sold to. Eventually, P learned the truth and sued for damages in 1984. P sued on thirteen counts alleging among other causes of action that the blood and bodily substances, and the cell line developed from them were his tangible personal property. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the conversion count and then dismissed the entire claim because the conversion cause of action was incorporated into all the other causes of action. P appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the conversion count and agreed that the informed consent count was not adequate. That court found no prior legal authority or public policy or known facts of biological science that P cannot own a legal interest in his own bodily tissues amounting to personal property. The appeals court concluded that there were no grounds to infer that P had abandoned his tissue or consented to its use in research unrelated to his treatment. D appealed.