Moore v. Regents of the University of California

Dispute

Plaintiff, who was being treated for hairy-cell leukemia, allowed the removal of his spleen and repeated cell samples under the belief that this was necessary for his health. Physician servants of the Defendant used his tissue to develop and patent a cell line for commercial use. Plaintiff sued for conversion and breach of nondisclosure observations.

Questions of law

What ownership interest does an individual maintain in bodily tissue? What are the limits of conversion with respect to ownership interests?

Conclusions

The court found that plaintiff did not have a sufficient ownership interest to sustain a claim for conversion, no matter how egregious the defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent were.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s