Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990)


a.       Facts- P underwent surgery in which Ds removed his spleen. Without P’s knowledge, D conducted research on P’s cells from the spleen to develop a “cell line”, which Ds then obtained a patent on. Said cell line is worth 3bil dollars. P sued for conversion of his cells
b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct dismissed complaint. Ct of appeals reversed. California Sup Ct reversed Ct of appeals.
c.       Issue- Whether the P had ownership in the excised cells such that he may file suit for conversion.
d.      Holding- No, P cannot claim ownership to the excised cells for the purpose of filing conversion suit
e.       Rule- Under conversion theory, no action can be brought where the subject matter is cells excised during medical treatment. However, action may be brought under breach of fiduciary duty or informed-consent theories
f.       Rationale- “We should not threaten with disabling civil liability innocent parties who are engaged in socially useful activities”. Also, patients should have the right to make autonomous medical decisions.

1 comment: