Moore v.

Regents of the University of

California Case Brief Summary
Summary of Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146,
793 P.2d 479, cert. denied 499 U.S. 936 (1991).

Facts
Moore (P) was treated for hairy cell leukemia by Golde (D) at UCLA Medical Center. Test
results revealed that Moores cells would be useful for genetic research and Golde removed
blood, bone marrow, Moores spleen, and other tissues. Golde did not inform Moore of his plans
to use the cells for research.
After Moore underwent surgery Golde falsely told him that he needed follow up treatment and
further tests which must be conducted at the UCLA Medical Center. Golde took blood and tissue
samples from Moore on several occasions over a seven year period and retained Moores spleen
for research without Moores knowledge or consent.
Golde patented a cell line using Moores cells. The defendants received substantial royalties from
licensing the technology including cash and stock options. Moore learned of defendants
activities and sued in state court on thirteen counts including a claim for conversion, claiming
that his blood and tissues and the cell line developed from them were his tangible personal
property. The trial court sustained the defendants demurrer on the conversion claim and
dismissed the case on the grounds that all of the remaining claims were subordinate to the
conversion claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that informed consent was
inadequate and concluding that there were no grounds establishing that Moore had abandoned or
consented to the use of his tissue for research unrelated to his treatment. Golde and the Regents
of the University of California appealed.

Issues
1. Does a claim for conversion lie for the use of a plaintiffs bodily tissue in medical
research without his knowledge or consent?
2. Under the duty to obtain informed consent, must a doctor disclose his intent in using a
patient for research and economic gain?

Holding and Rule (Panelli)

1. No. A claim for conversion does not lie for the use of a plaintiffs bodily tissue in medical
research without his knowledge or consent.
2. Yes. Under the duty to obtain informed consent, a doctor must disclose his intent in using
a patient for research and economic gain.

Rule for Conversion

To establish conversion, plaintiff must establish an actual interference with his ownership or
right of possession. Where plaintiff neither has title to the property alleged to have been
converted, nor possession thereof, he cannot maintain an action for conversion.
The court held that since the plaintiff did not expect to retain possession of his cells, to sue for
their conversion he must have retained an ownership interest in them. There are several reasons
to doubt that he retained such interest. First, there is no precedent in support of plaintiffs claim.
Second, California statutes drastically limit any continuing interest of a patient in excised cells
by requiring that they be destroyed after use. Third, the subject matter of the patent (i.e. the
patented cell line and the technology and products derived from it) cannot be Moores property.
Moores allegations state a cause of action for invading a legally protected interest of his patient.
A cause of action can lie under the informed consent doctrine as a breach of the fiduciary duty to
disclose material facts, or the lack of informed consent in obtaining consent to conduct medical
procedures. A reasonable patient would want to know that his physicians professional judgment
might be impaired by an independent economic interest.

Public Policy
The court stated that it must balance the competing interests in determining whether conversion
liability should be extended. Extension of conversion liability would produce great harm to
future medical research. The court held that this was an issue better left to the legislative branch.

Disposition
The complaint states a cause of action for breach of the physicians disclosure obligations, but
not for conversion.

Notes
While the patents at issue in this case do not claim DNA sequences specifically, this case is
widely cited in the context of legal issues involving DNA and biotechnology and the ethical
implications of these new technologies.