Moore v. Regents of the University of California 51 Cal. 3d 120, 793 P.2d 479, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146, cert. denied, 499 U.S. 936 (1991). Page 79 Facts: Moore was told by the Regents that he had hairy-cell leukemia and that his spleen should be removed. They did not tell him that his cells were very unique and of great value in research. After his spleen was removed he underwent 7 years of follow-up tests which he was led to believe was for his treatment. During this time researchers were using his spleen and the new tests done for research and created a cell line and received a patent for it. The cell line and information was worth a lot of money. Moore sues for a number of things including conversion. At first the case is thrown out, then upon appeal is reinstated and now is in another stage of appeal. Do you have a property right in your cells.
Procedure:
Issue: Rule: Rationale:
To establish a conversion Moore must show either interference with his ownership or his right of possession. Since he did not retain possession in them he must show an ownership interest in his cells. Three reasons why he does not have an ownership interest in them: (1) No case law to support the contention that a person retains an ownership interest in excised body parts; (2) California statues limit a patient’s control over excised body parts with specific reference to their disposal; (3) The cell line is legally and factually different than the organs. Now we consider whether conversion liability should be expanded. No because: (1) This would stifle research because any researcher who gets a hold of some cells now has to go find out who it belongs to and whether they have given consent; (2) We should leave it up to the legislature; (3) The duty of the doctor to disclose his research and economic interests should protect the patient’s rights, he can always seek treatment elsewhere.