Moore v. Regents of the University of California

Facts

These facts come from Moore's complaint, which the court took as true on demurrer. Dr. David W. Golde treated John Moore for hairy-cell leukemia at the UCLA Medical Center. In October 1976, Golde confirmed the diagnosis. Golde and the other defendants knew that certain blood components had great commercial and scientific value. Golde told Moore that he had reason to fear for his life and that a splenectomy was necessary to slow his disease. Relying on this, Moore signed a consent form. Before the operation, Golde and Shirley G. Quan, a researcher employed by the Regents, arranged to take portions of the spleen to a separate research unit for research unrelated to Moore's care. Neither told Moore or asked his permission. Surgeons removed the spleen on October 20, 1976. Between November 1976 and September 1983, Moore traveled from Seattle to UCLA several times at Golde's direction, told the visits were necessary for his health. Each time Golde withdrew more samples, including blood, skin, bone marrow and sperm, while defendants concealed their research on his cells. Before August 1979, Golde established a cell line from Moore's T-lymphocytes. The Regents applied for a patent on it in 1981, naming Golde and Quan as inventors, and the patent issued in 1984. With the Regents' help, Golde negotiated development deals: he acquired rights to 75,000 shares of Genetics Institute stock, and the company agreed to pay him and the Regents at least $330,000 over three years. When Sandoz joined, that compensation rose by $110,000.

Issues

1. Does a patient state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent when a physician fails to disclose personal research and economic interests in the patient's cells before obtaining consent to medical procedures by which the cells are extracted?
2. Does an unauthorized use of a patient's excised cells in medical research and commercial product development subject the physician and subsequent researchers to liability for the tort of conversion?

Holding

Moore stated a cause of action against Golde for breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent: Golde allegedly had an undisclosed research interest in Moore's cells when he sought consent to the splenectomy, and concealed an economic interest during the postoperative procedures. Moore stated no cause of action for conversion against any defendant, because existing law does not clearly give him one and the court declined to extend conversion liability to the use of excised cells in medical research.