Moore v.

Regents of the University of California

Case Brief
Facts:
Plaintiff Moore was treated by Defendant Golde at Defendant U.C.L.A. Medical Center for hairy-cell leukemia .
This treatment course occurred between October 1976 and September 1983, and included several instances where
Defendant Golde removed blood, bone marrow aspirate and several other bodily substances. In August of 1979,
Defendant Golde established a cell line from the matter taken from Plaintiffs body. Thereafter, on January 30,
1981, Defendant Regents of University of California applied for a patent on the cell line. On March 20, 1984, the
patent issued and named Defendants Golde and Quan (a researcher at U.C.L.A.) as the inventors and the
Defendant Regents as the assignee. Defendants Genetics Institute Inc., and Sandoz Pharmaceuticals were added
due to their subsequent investments in the cell line. Moore brought suit alleging conversion of his bodily fluids had
occurred by the Defendants.

Issue(s):
Did the Plaintiff retain an ownership interest in the excised cells and matter such
that he may prosecute the Defendants for conversion?
Holding(s):
No. Plaintiff did not state a cause of action based on conversion, but may prosecute
the case based on theories of breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent.
A tort of conversion occurs when personal property of one person is interfered with
by another with regard to possessory or ownership interests. In this case the
Plaintiff argues that the matter taken from his body belonged to him and that he did
not authorize the Defendants to use the excised material to profit. Further, that as
the result of the alleged conversion, Plaintiff asserts a right to a portion of any profit
resulting from the use of the excised material. The Court notes that historically the
tort of conversion arose to settle disputes between losers and finders.
The Court examined Plaintiffs claim under the existing law and found that no
judicial decision could be found to support the claim, that statutory law drastically
limits the continuing interest of a patient in excised tissue, and finally that the
subject matter of the patent cannot possibly belong to Plaintiff. The Court noted a
California statute which ordered that any materials removed from patients be
disposed of in a safe matter. The legislative intent was, according to the Court, to
limit the patients ownership of any material excised in the course of medical
treatment. The Court finds that the cell line is factually and legally distinct from any
part of materials removed from Plaintiffs body.
The Court is concerned with the rights of the patient. However, conversion is a strict
liability tort which subjects innocent third parties to liability for acts which may not
be under their direction and control. The court found that the breach of fiduciary
duty theory and the lack of informed consent theory were better suited to protect
the rights of patients. Thus, the Court declined to extend conversion liability in this
type of suit.
Rule(s):
That no action based on a theory of conversion may be prosecuted where the
subject matter of the allegation are excised cells taken from Plaintiff in the course of
a medical treatment; however, that an action may be based on theories of breach of
fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent.
Reasoning:

Dissent:
The Plaintiffs body is unique and based upon ethical and equitable concerns the
Plaintiff should have a proprietary interest in the cells and tissue of his body.