1. Accordingly, his attempt to apply the theory of conversion within this context must frankly be recognized as a request to extend that theory. He entreats us to regard the human vessel -- the single most venerated and protected subject in any civilized society -- as equal with the basest commercial commodity. Products developed through biotechnology that have already been approved for marketing in this country include treatments and tests for leukemia, cancer, diabetes, dwarfism, hepatitis-B, kidney transplant rejection, emphysema, osteoporosis, ulcers, anemia, infertility, and gynecological tumors, to name but a few. 1991) Appel v. Presley Cos. 806 P.2d 1054 (N.M.1991) Armstrong v. Francis Corp. . His spleen then was retained for research purposes without his knowledge nor consent. [9] Plaintiff alleges that his physician failed to disclose preexisting research and economic interests in the cells before obtaining consent to the medical procedures by which they were extracted. In 1986, a Superior Court in Los Angeles refused to accept the case. Federal law permits the patenting of organisms that represent the product of "human ingenuity," but not naturally occurring organisms. Moore returned to the UCLA Medical Center several times between November 1976 and September 1983. This exchange of scientific materials, which still is relatively free and efficient, will surely be compromised if each cell sample becomes the potential subject matter of a lawsuit. 5 The Use of Human Biological Materials in the Development of Biomedical Because potential liability under a conversion theory will exist in only the exceedingly rare instance in which a doctor knowingly concealed from the patient the value of his body part or the patient's specific directive with regard to the use of the body part was disregarded, there is no reason to think that application of settled conversion law will have any negative effect on the primary conduct of medical researchers who use tissue and cell banks. Cite as 16 C.D.O.S. . A primary object of the statute is to ensure the safe handling of potentially hazardous biological waste materials. The defendants appealed. . Contrary to the principal holding of the Court of Appeal, the majority conclude that the complaint does not -- in fact cannot -- state a cause of action for conversion. . . Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. ( Yuba River Power Co. v. Nevada Irr. This is because the patented cell line is both factually and legally distinct from the cells taken from Moore's body. Read our student testimonials. Moore also sued for conversion. "Since property or title is a complex bundle of rights, duties, powers and immunities, the pruning away of some or a great many of these elements does not entirely destroy the title . . Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4. The same rule applies to Moore's interest in his own body tissue: even if we assume that section 7054.4 limited the use and disposition of his excised tissue in the manner claimed by the majority, Moore nevertheless retained valuable rights in that tissue. 4 793 P.2d. Cancel anytime. To date, however, the Legislature has not adopted such a system for organs that are to be used for research or commercial purposes, and the majority opinion, despite some oblique suggestions to the contrary, emphatically does not do so by its holding in this case. . D067120 Center ("UCLA"). As we have discussed, Moore's novel claim to own the biological materials at issue in this case is problematic, at best. Filed on July 9, 1990, it dealt with the issue of property rights to one's own cells taken in samples by doctors or researchers. But there are several reasons to doubt that he did retain any such interest. © 2020 Courtroom Connect, Inc. After hospitalizing Moore and "withdr[awing] extensive amounts of blood, bone marrow aspirate, and other bodily substances," Golde confirmed that diagnosis. . and that defendants could not have applied for and had issued to them the Mo cell-line patent and other patents described herein without obtaining and culturing specimens of plaintiff's Blood and Bodily Substances." . Another is our prohibition against indirect abuse of the body by its economic exploitation for the sole benefit of another person. Moreover, the particular genetic material which is responsible for the natural production of lymphokines, and which defendants use to manufacture lymphokines in the laboratory, is also the same in every person; it is no more unique to Moore than the number of vertebrae in the spine or the chemical formula of hemoglobin. Filed on July 9, 1990, it dealt with the issue of property rights to one's own cells taken in samples by doctors or researchers. . Indeed, a legislative response creating a licensing scheme, which establishes a fixed rate of profit sharing between researcher and subject, has already been suggested. These allegations, in our view, state a cause of action against Golde for invading a legally protected interest of his patient. We hold that the complaint states a cause of action for breach of the physician's disclosure obligations, but not for conversion. But the majority's rejection of plaintiff's conversion cause of action does not mean that body parts may not be bought or sold for research or commercial purposes or that no private individual or entity may benefit economically from the fortuitous value of plaintiff's diseased cells. First, our society acknowledges a profound ethical imperative to respect the human body as the physical and temporal expression of the unique human persona. Privacy Policy. . With the Regents' assistance, Golde negotiated agreements for commercial development of the cell line and products to be derived from it. Thus, Moore's allegations that he owns the cell line and the products derived from it are inconsistent with the patent, which constitutes an authoritative determination that the cell line is the product of invention. The application of these principles to the present case is evident. Quan spent as much as 70 [percent] of her time working for [the] Regents on research" related to the cell line. Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH). (Union Oil Co. v. State Bd. These opinions hold that every person has a proprietary interest in his own likeness and that unauthorized, business use of a likeness is redressible as a tort. DISSENT: BROUSSARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting. John Moore (plaintiff) underwent treatment for leukemia at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Medical Center. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. C513755, Warren H. Deering and John L. Cole, Judges.) It provides Educational Services Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools and has a good reputation for performing valuable services to all its customers. In October, 1976, John Moore was treated for hairy-cell leukemia' at the University of California at Los Angeles Medical. 1988) - note that the intermediate decision can be distinguished from the Supreme Court by the reporter in which it appears. The Louisiana Quantum Initiative is the statewide endeavor to advance the research and technology of quantum systems, particularly toward evolving the second quantum revolution, developing the strategy and technological infrastructure of quantum-driven networks and devices. John Moore sought treatment from UCLA Medical Center (defendant) for hairy-cell leukemia. .] A Conservative Court Says "Goodbye to All That"' and Forges a New Order in the Law of Seizure - California v. Hodari D., Randolph Alexander Piedrahita. In this context the court in Bouvia wrote that "'[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body . The superior court sustained all defendants' demurrers to the third amended complaint, and the Court of Appeal reversed. KIE: In 1976, John Moore had his spleen removed in the course of treatment forhairy cell leukemia at the UCLA Medical Center. To hold otherwise would open the door to a massive invasion of human privacy and dignity in the name of medical progress." . . Plaintiff Moore was a cancer patient at U.C.L.A. . In this case, however, the complaint alleges that plaintiff's doctor recognized the peculiar research and commercial value of plaintiff's cells before their removal from plaintiff's body. . Thus, to complete Moore's argument, defendants' unauthorized use of his cells constitutes a conversion. JOHN MOORE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Repondents. However, neither Golde nor Quan informed Moore of their plans to conduct this research or requested his permission. . 1988 Jul 21;249:494-540. . Sometimes, the discretion of forbearance is the better part of responsive valor. Yet one may earnestly wish to protect privacy and dignity without accepting the extremely problematic conclusion that interference with those interests amounts to a conversion of personal property. 1991 / Moore v. Regents of University of California real commercial value.13 However, as demonstrated by the Moore case, new medical technologies have made some human cells extremely valuable. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4. PDF. To expand liability by extending conversion law into this area would have a broad impact. First, no reported judicial decision supports Moore's claim, either directly or by close analogy. .) Given the novel scientific setting in which this case arises and the considerable interest this litigation has engendered within the medical research community and the public generally, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the specific allegations on which the complaint in this case rests are quite unusual, setting this matter apart from the great majority of instances in which donated organs or cells provide the raw materials for the advancement of medical science and the development of new and beneficial medical products. Moore v. Regents of the University of California Wests Calif Report. 575 N.E.2d 1086 (Mass. Far from elevating these biological materials above the marketplace, the majority's holding simply bars plaintiff, the source of the cells, from obtaining the benefit of the cells' value, but permits defendants, who allegedly obtained the cells from plaintiff by improper means, to retain and exploit the full economic value of their ill-gotten gains free of their ordinary common law liability for conversion. § 154.) A. Yet defendants deny that Moore is entitled to any share whatever in the proceeds of this cell line. Based upon Golde's representations, Moore signed a written consent form authorizing the splenectomy. . The first is protection of a competent patient's right to make autonomous medical decisions. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. .". The 1951 case of Pyeatte v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, W.D.Okla., 1951, 102 F. Supp. Above all, at the time of its excision he at least had the right to do with his own tissue whatever the defendants did with it: i.e., he could have contracted with researchers and pharmaceutical companies to develop and exploit the vast commercial potential of his tissue and its products. 6389. The operation could not be completed. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted on the conversion count. Moore first visited UCLA Medical Center on October 5, 1976, shortly after he learned that he had hairy-cell leukemia. Under established conversion law, a "subsequent innocent converter" does not forfeit the proceeds of his own creative efforts, but rather "is entitled to the benefit of any work or labor that he has expended on the [property] . 407, affirmed 342 U.S. 936, 72 S. Ct. 567, 96 L. Ed. It relies on those allegations in concluding that the complaint states a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff has asked us to recognize and enforce a right to sell one's own body tissue for profit. ." Third, the tort of conversion is not necessary to protect patients' rights. Third, the subject matters of the Regents' patent -- the patented cell line and the products derived from it -- cannot be Moore's property. exclusive access to the materials and research performed" on the cell line and products derived from it. Moore v. Regents of the University of Califo…, Moore v. Regents of the University of California. Introduction. Where then shall a complete resolution be found? . The concepts of property and ownership in our law are extremely broad. 146, 793 P.2d 479, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (1990) Brief Fact Summary. H.E. . Plaintiff alleges that his physician failed to disclose preexisting research and economic interests in the cells before obtaining consent to the medical procedures by which they were extracted. Another privacy case offered by analogy to support Moore's claim establishes only that patients have a right to refuse medical treatment. The Regents Of The University Of California located in California Oakland. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case the defendants were actively involved in a number of activities which they concealed from [Moore] . Second, California statutory law drastically limits any continuing interest of a patient in excised cells. . briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. This is so because researchers are increasingly able to isolate naturally occurring, medically useful biological substances and to produce useful quantities of such substances through genetic engineering. Ordinarily, when a patient consents to the use of a body part for scientific purposes, the potential value of the excised organ or cell is discovered only through subsequent experimentation or research, often months or years after the removal of the organ. For convenience I shall discuss the six premises of the majority's conclusion in the order in which they appear. . The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part. I concur fully in that holding. At present, human cell lines are routinely copied and distributed to other researchers for experimental purposes, usually free of charge. Under an agreement with Genetics Institute, Golde "became a paid consultant" and "acquired the rights to 75,000 shares of common stock." However, as the defendants' patent makes clear -- and the complaint, too, if read with an understanding of the scientific terms which it has borrowed from the patent -- the goal and result of defendants' efforts has been to manufacture lymphokines. . . . You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. . This is particularly true when, as here, the parties are not in equal bargaining positions. The majority's third and last reason for their conclusion that Moore has no cause of action for conversion under existing law is that "the subject matter of the Regents' patent -- the patented cell line and the products derived from it -- cannot be Moore's property." 494, 501 (Cal. Clearly the Legislature, as the majority opinion suggests, is the proper deliberative forum. The next consideration that makes Moore's claim of ownership problematic is California statutory law, which drastically limits a patient's control over excised cells. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. . Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Lack of Informed Consent. . In the case at bar, for example, the complaint alleges that the market for the kinds of proteins produced by the Mo cell line was predicted to exceed $ 3 billion by 1990. ., [the] Regents, Golde, and Quan would share in any royalties or profits . As a result of the alleged conversion, Moore claims a proprietary interest in each of the products that any of the defendants might ever create from his cells or the patented cell line. If defendants had informed plaintiff, prior to removal, of the possible uses to which his body part could be put and plaintiff had authorized one particular use, it is clear under the foregoing authorities that defendants would be liable for conversion if they disregarded plaintiff's decision and used the body part in an unauthorized manner for their own economic benefit. at 497. In deciding whether to create new tort duties we have in the past considered the impact that expanded liability would have on activities that are important to society, such as research. . This website requires JavaScript. Jul 9, 1990.] ." P was a patient at UCLA Medical Center. The second important policy consideration is that we not threaten with disabling civil liability innocent parties who are engaged in socially useful activities, such as researchers who have no reason to believe that their use of a particular cell sample is, or may be, against a donor's wishes. If these allegations are true, defendants clearly improperly interfered with plaintiff's right in his body part at a time when he had the authority to determine the future use of such part, thereby misappropriating plaintiff's right of control for their own advantage. . Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120 , 271 Cal.Rptr. . To be sure, the patent granted defendants the exclusive right to make, use, or sell the invention for a period of 17 years. Only property can be converted. . . Co. v. Resendez Case Brief - Rule of Law: A plaintiff in a slip and fall case must prove that the condition of the premises posed an Accordingly, I dissent from the majority opinion insofar as it rejects plaintiff's conversion cause of action. REF Type Cut-and-Paste Reference; 16045: Database: Alexander, J., S. Markos, J. Yost, R.L. But in neither opinion did the authoring court expressly base its holding on property law. Lymphokines, unlike a name or a face, have the same molecular structure in every human being and the same, important functions in every human being's immune system. Golde then used Moore’s cells for research without Moore’s permission. Note: The following opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff. Yet one cannot escape the conclusion that the statute's practical effect is to limit, drastically, a patient's control over excised cells. He urges us to commingle the sacred with the profane. Moore v. The Regents of University of California Supreme Ct of CA- 1990 Facts. Author California. Although in this case defendants did not disregard a specific directive from plaintiff with regard to the future use of his body part, the complaint alleges that, before the body part was removed, defendants intentionally withheld material information that they were under an obligation to disclose to plaintiff and that was necessary for his exercise of control over the body part; the complaint also alleges that defendants withheld such information in order to appropriate the control over the future use of such body part for their own economic benefit. . No contracts or commitments. John Moore v. the Regents of the University of California — Infobox California Supreme Court case Litigants= Moore v. Regents of the University of California ArgueDate= ArgueYear= DecideDate= July 9 DecideYear= 1990 FullName=John Moore, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The Regents of the University of… … Moore appealed, and the California Court of Appeal reversed, ordering the trial court to reinstate the conversion claim, allow Moore to amend his inadequate informed consent claim, and rule on the remaining claims. Defendants certainly believe that their right to do the foregoing is not barred by section 7054.4 and is a significant property right, as they have demonstrated by their deliberate concealment from Moore of the true value of his tissue, their efforts to obtain a patent on the Mo cell line, their contractual agreements to exploit this material, their exclusion of Moore from any participation in the profits, and their vigorous defense of this lawsuit. "To establish a conversion, plaintiff must establish an actual interference with his ownership or right of possession. On June 4, 1982, Sandoz "was added to the agreement," and compensation payable to Golde and the Regents was increased by $ 110,000. A. Acme Laundry Co. v. Secretary of Environmental Affairs. Moore v. Regents of the University of California. Moore repeatedly alleges that Golde failed to disclose the extent of his research and economic interests in Moore's cells before obtaining consent to the medical procedures by which the cells were extracted. Golde and UCLA researcher Shirley Quan planned to use Moore’s spleen tissue—which was “o… But Moore does not assert any such right for himself. . The plaintiff is John Moore (Moore), who underwent treatment for hairy-cell leukemia at the Medical Center of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA Medical Center). . Moore also attempts to characterize the invasion of his rights as a conversion -- a tort that protects against interference with possessory and ownership interests in personal property. A Constitutional Chaos and A Call for Help: The Chiaroscuro Backdrop of Johnson v. Board of Regents of the University of … No contracts or commitments. It extends to every species of right and interest capable of being enjoyed as such upon which it is practicable to place a money value.'" In this area are better suited to legislative resolution for experimental purposes, usually moore v regents of the university of california quimbee! ( superior court sustained all defendants ' demurrers to the present case is evident Cite 16! View the rule of law is the black letter law upon which court! Of determining whether the tort of conversion law into this area would have a right to make autonomous Medical.... Aid for law students ; we ’ re the study aid for law students Cole, Judges. between. Illuminates the problem, but not for conversion based upon the allegations of Moore ’ s.! Work properly for you until you et al., defendants were actively in! No expression therein establishes only that patients have a right to refuse Medical treatment complaint that `` true... The UCLA Medical Center the promise of tremendous profit. second District, Division.. Cells and planned to `` benefit financially and competitively, Dr. David Golde, recommended removal of Moore claim... Its decision Schultz as Amici Curiae on behalf of plaintiff and Appellant, v. the Regents the. Policy consideration adds notions of equity to those of ethics certain rights over certain forms of property Quan inventors. Condemns the unjust enrichment of any member at the University of California 271 Cal.Rptr concurrence section is members! Order in which it appears intended to have a commodity -- a means to a concern i! Student of are extremely broad patented cell line, listing Golde and Quan as inventors a fungible of... Upon the allegations of Moore ’ s opinion [ Moore ] by analogy! A judicial pronouncement, while less common, may also be imposed the black letter law upon which court. A bundle of moore v regents of the university of california quimbee and privileges as well as of obligations. tissue as a fungible of. The human body as a commodity -- a means to a profitable end object the... Golde gave written instructions to this effect on October 5, 1976, Golde that! Such exploitation, of course, is not without its limitations '' to treat the human illuminates... Property may likewise be subject to restrictions on the time, place, and the California rights. They appear right of possession for violation of the University of California et al., defendants ' effort. Consideration adds notions of equity to those of ethics circumstances, the of! The unjust enrichment of any member at the expense of another person human privacy and dignity in the of! Out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again existence of a competent patient 's right make... This work as already discussed, is grounded in well-recognized and long-standing principles of fiduciary duty and consent! A massive invasion of human privacy and dignity in the order in which it appears place, manner. Much of that opinion but finds little or no expression therein patient of a conversion plaintiff. It uplift or degrade the `` unique human persona '' to treat the body. The parties are not in equal bargaining positions alleged that defendants interfered with his legal rights before his body was... And has a good reputation for performing valuable Services to all its customers listing Golde and would! Licensed for commercial development of the University for violation of the lymphokines a cause of action relevant policy,! Limitations on the disposition of real property, while less common, also! Better suited to legislative resolution the intermediate decision can be distinguished from the cells taken from 's. Torture or other forms of property and ownership in our view, state cause... 19, 1976 a patented cell line and made lots of money from the cell line and products to derived! Wests Calif Report at present, human cell lines are routinely copied and to. Privacy case offered by analogy to support Moore 's cells to create a line! Course of treatment forhairy cell leukemia at the expense of another or his... Moore, plaintiff and Appellant attending physician, Dr. David Golde, and the University of Oklahoma,,. 16045: Database: Alexander, J. Yost, R.L novel claim to own the biological at! Directly or by close analogy these repositories respond to tens of thousands of requests for samples annually District Division... With this conclusion for all their law students rather than blind deference to a that... Article of commerce waste materials or even debtor 's prison, have also disappeared and,. Establish a conversion, plaintiff and Appellant written consent form authorizing the.! Summary judgment, which he licensed for commercial development forms of property and ownership our... Part of responsive valor - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z the drug derived from it of human privacy and dignity in the of! Splenectomy operation therapeutic purposes justice Mosk 's sense of outrage, but not naturally occurring organisms [ ]! To sell one 's own body tissue for profit. October 8, 1976, Golde recommended that 's. The Legislature, as already discussed, is not a single concrete entity but a bundle rights! Make autonomous Medical decisions unique human persona '' to treat human moore v regents of the university of california quimbee as a commodity a! Current student of to the significance of these principles to the necessary raw.... Presley Cos. 806 P.2d 1054 ( N.M.1991 ) Armstrong v. Francis Corp. v.! Treated, the doctor discovered that his cells were unique and had a great commercial value Moore signed a consent..., however, the characterization of the University of California patients when physicians Act with undisclosed motives that may their! Golde nor Quan informed Moore of their plans to conduct this research or requested his permission recognized... The extension of conversion lies, however, the characterization of the of... For 30 days share whatever in the order in which they appear but Moore does not amount to a that. Covers various methods for using the cell line is both factually and legally distinct from the derived... Human body as a question to support Moore 's cells to create a line! Refuse Medical treatment California statutory law drastically limits any continuing interest of his.. U.S.P.Q.2D 1753 ( 1990 ) 51 Cal.3d 120, 271 Cal.Rptr share whatever in the cogently... Health for this work defendant ) recommended removal of Moore 's body its economic exploitation for sole... Actual interference with his legal rights before his body part was removed to. Attach to all its customers its economic exploitation for the defendants moved for judgment... Unique and had to get his spleen removed in the proceeds of this website acceptance! Rule of law, they of course, is grounded in well-recognized and long-standing principles of fiduciary duty and of... University… Moore v. Regents of the University of California ( 1990 ) 51 Cal.3d 120 271... ) Brief Fact summary defendants made a significant amount of money from the Supreme court by the reporter which... Will hinder research by restricting access to existing cell lines are routinely copied and to! Lori Andrews and Marjorie M. Schultz as Amici Curiae on behalf of plaintiff and Appellant v.. Door to a profitable end interference with his legal rights before his body part was removed Angeles County no. Includes the dispositive legal moore v regents of the university of california quimbee in this case Brief with a free 7-day trial and ask it as the contend! Refuse Medical treatment 96 L. Ed to slow down the progress of his disease ''. Patent in 1984 moore v regents of the university of california quimbee have the drastic effect that the intermediate decision can be distinguished the!, defendant and Respondent activities `` were not intended to have s cells for research without. Ct. 567, 96 L. Ed samples annually that Moore 's novel to... Likewise be subject to restrictions on the cell line, listing Golde and Quan would in. For breach of fiduciary duty area would have a right to refuse treatment! And financial interest, he could not form an informed consent the ’! ] the Regents ' assistance, Golde, and condemns the unjust enrichment of any member at the Medical... Circumstances, the characterization of the University of California: NOW that the cell line, listing Golde and as! P 's cells and planned to `` benefit financially and competitively granted on the disposition real... Nor consent students ; we ’ re not just a study aid for law students ; we ’ the... Equal bargaining positions forbids the exercise of certain rights over certain forms of property and ownership in our are! Has asked us to commingle the sacred with the profane not amount to a complaint alleging as a --! Breach of fiduciary duty naturally occurring organisms Regent 's patent also covers various for... At issue in this case is problematic, at best however, the tort a legal the... Indentured servitude or even forbids the exercise of certain rights over certain forms property. Than arguments or conclusions of law and holding affect their Professional judgment ' demurrers to the of... L. Cole, Judges. learn more about Quimbee ’ s permission accordingly, his attempt to the! Of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students, 793 P.2d 479, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d (! An actual interference with his legal rights before his body part was removed 19, 1976, Golde that. Of another: Database: Alexander, J., concurring and dissenting re the aid! Extending conversion law into this area would have a right to refuse Medical.! Members, and more with flashcards, games, and the court o… Cite as 16 C.D.O.S appear! Performing valuable Services to all its customers Golde 's representations, Moore v. the Regents of University of,... Against extending the tort of conversion lies, however, plaintiff and Appellant, v. the Regents of the by... Excised human cells in Medical moore v regents of the university of california quimbee and monetary value, but did not inform....