Moore v. Regents of University of California

Supreme Court of California · 1990 · Property

Propertyproperty rightsbody partsconversioninformed consentconversionexcised cellsphysician fiduciary duty

Facts

Moore was treated for hairy-cell leukemia at UCLA Medical Center by Dr. Golde. Before Moore's splenectomy, Golde and researcher Quan allegedly planned to obtain and use portions of Moore's spleen for research unrelated to his medical care, but they did not disclose those plans or any research or economic interests when obtaining Moore's consent. Moore later returned for follow-up visits during which Golde withdrew additional blood and other samples while allegedly concealing ongoing research and financial interests in Moore's cells. Golde and Quan developed a cell line from Moore's cells, the Regents obtained a patent on it, and agreements were made for commercial development with Genetics Institute and Sandoz.

Issue

Did Moore state a cause of action against his physician and the other defendants for using his cells in medical research without his permission? More specifically, did the complaint state claims for breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent, and did it also state a claim for conversion based on ownership or possessory rights in excised cells?

Rule

A physician must disclose personal interests unrelated to the patient's health, including research or economic interests, that may affect the physician's medical judgment when seeking the patient's consent to a medical procedure. Failure to make that disclosure may support a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent. But the use of excised human cells in medical research does not support a conversion claim, because existing law does not clearly recognize a patient's ownership interest sufficient for conversion and policy considerations weigh against extending conversion liability to this context.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Dr. Nina Patel recommended that Owen Briggs undergo removal of a benign but symptomatic growth on his shoulder. Before asking for Owen's consent, Nina had already arranged with a laboratory at Cascadia Biomedical Center to preserve part of the tissue for a study she hoped would advance her own publication record, but she said nothing about that plan.

If Owen later sues based on the undisclosed plan, which is the strongest claim under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that when a physician seeks consent for a medical procedure, the physician must disclose personal interests unrelated to the patient's health, including research interests, if they may affect professional judgment. Failure to disclose can support breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent even when the procedure also has a therapeutic purpose. The majority rejected conversion for use of excised cells.